nt:     V  !  'r<.Lf  i  /M     O  J  t<^T  tA 


V'    2-2^ 


3Frnm  tljiip  Hthraru  nf 

tlj?  ffitbrarg  of 
Prinrrtnn  Slj^nlngtral  ^tmimv^ 

7tTGRP3 


Foreign  Religious  Series 


Edited  by 
R.  J.   COOKE,  D.   D. 


First  Series.     i6mo,  cloth.     Each  40  cents,  net. 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

By  Professor  Richard  H.  Griitzmacher,  of  the 
University  of  Rostock 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Eduard   Riggenbach,  of  the  University 
of  Basle 


THE  SINLESSNESS  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Max  Meyer,  Lie.  Theol.,  Gottberg, 

Germany 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Karl  Beth,  of  the  University 

of  Berlin 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  AND  THE 

SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 

By  Professor  Fritz  Barth,  of  the  University 
of  Bern 


NEW  TESTAMENT  PARALLELS  IN 
BUDDHISTIC  LITERATURE 

By  Professor  Karl  Von  Hase,  of  the  University 
of  Breslau 


The  Virgin  Birth 

^      .1UL17  1922      * 


By/ 
RICHARD   H.    GRUTZMACHER 

Professor  of  T.heology  in  the  University  of  Rostock 


NEW    YORK:    EATON    &    MAINS 
CINCINNATI :    JENNINGS  &  GRAHAM 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
EATON  &  MAINS, 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

The  purpose  of  this  series  of  booklets  is 
to  present  in  briefest  form  the  best  thought 
of  some  of  the  foremost  teachers  in  Euro- 
pean universities  on  such  subjects,  Rehgious 
and  Theological,  as  are  at  this  time  of  special 
interest  to  Christian  believers.  Such  books, 
we  think,  are  both  useful  and  necessary.  In 
these  days  of  restless  energy,  of  infinitely 
varied  and  ceaseless  demands  on  body  and 
mind,  few  people,  comparatively,  have  either 
time  or  inclination  for  close  and  patient 
study  of  voluminous  works  defending  the 
historic  faith  of  the  Church — works  which, 
while  they  may  be  monuments  of  skill  and 
of  modern  critical  scholarship  and  amply 
refute  the  erroneous  findings  of  rationalistic 
thought,  are  nevertheless  too  far  removed 
by  reason  of  their  minutely  critical  charac- 
ter from  the  practical  needs  of  all  except  ex- 
perts in  particular  lines  of  scientific  investi- 
gation. To  the  laity  such  works  present  no 
clean,  clear-cut  image.  They  cannot  see  the 
wood  for  the  trees.  Such  handbooks  as 
these,  therefore,  and  by  such  eminent  au- 


6  The  Virgin  Birth 

thorities  as  we  have  selected,  cannot  be  other 
than  helpful  to  earnest  Christian  readers 
who  are  not  insensible  to  the  widespread  in- 
fluence of  rationalistic  literature  which  is 
now  being  popularized  in  this  country 
through  cheap  translations  of  French  and 
German  originals. 

The  first  numbers  of  this  series  include 
such  subjects  as  The  Virgin  Birth,  by  Pro- 
fessor Griitzmacher,  of  the  University  of 
Rostock ;  The  Gospel  of  John  and  the  Syn- 
optic Gospels,  by  Professor  Barth,  of  Bern; 
The  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  by  Professor 
Riggenbach,  of  Basel;  New  Testament 
Parallels  in  Buddhistic  Literature,  by  Pro- 
fessor von  Hase,  of  Breslau;  The  Sinless- 
ness  of  Jesus,  by  Professor  Meyer,  of  Gott- 
berg;  The  Miracles  of  Jesus,  by  Dr.  Beth, 
of  Berlin.  These  will  be  followed  by  The 
New  Message  in  the  Teaching  of  Jesus; 
Paul  as  a  Theologian ;  Do  We  Need  Christ 
in  Our  Communion  with  God?;  Our  Lord; 
The  Peculiarity  of  the  Religion  of  the  Bible. 

While  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  indorse 
every  word  and  statement  in  the  several 
books  of  this  series,  since  some  margin  must 
be  allowed  for  freedom  of  expression  and 


The  Virgin  Birth  7 

something  left  to  the  saving  grace  of  com- 
mon sense  on  the  part  of  the  reader,  never- 
theless these  booklets  will  be  found  in  har- 
mony with  evangelical  belief,  and  will  serve 
to  show  that  scholarship  of  the  highest  grade 
is  not  wholly  on  the  side  of  radicalism,  as  is 
often  asserted,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  still 
have  in  the  foremost  seats  of  learning  faith- 
ful teachers  and  stalwart  defenders. 

The  translation  of  the  series  has  been 
made  by  the  Rev.  Bernhard  Pick,  Ph.D. 
A  comparison  of  his  work  with  the  orig- 
inals, some  of  which  are  extremely  difficult 
to  render  into  good  idiomatic  English, 
will  show  that  he  has  faithfully  rendered  the 
thoughts  of  the  writers.  Here  and  there 
without  taking  any  liberties  with  the  argu- 
ment of  the  author  I  have  omitted  some  un- 
necessary matter  and  have  appended  such 
notes  as  were  necessary  to  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  text,  or  such  as  may  be  found 
useful  to  any  one  desiring  reference  to  Eng- 
lish works  on  the  same  subject. 

R.  J.  Cooke, 
Book  Editor. 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

There  is  hardly  any  other  question  which 
is  made  so  perplexing  through  partisan 
hatred  and  favor  as  that  of  the  virgin  birth 
of  Jesus  Christ.  On  this  account  its  discus- 
sion demands  of  both  compiler  and  reader 
an  unusual  degree  of  balance  and  self-re- 
straint. This  is  best  attained  by  a  keen 
working  out  of  the  subject  and  its  separate 
treatment  from  each  of  the  different  points 
of  view  from  which  its  consideration  must 
take  place.  As  in  all  elements  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  religious  preaching  desig- 
nated as  "salvation-facts,"  so  also  in  the 
virgin  birth,  distinction  must  be  made  be- 
tween the  historical  fact  and  its  religious 
meaning.  On  this  account  we  first  inquire 
into  its  historicity  and  then  into  its  reli- 
gious significance.  The  results  are  not  alto- 
gether independent  of  each  other.  In  keep- 
ing with  the  now  generally  accepted  belief 
that  parts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  history 
of  primitive  Christianity  have  only  a  reli- 
gious standing  and  value  provided  they 
have  an  authentic  historical  basis,  a  positive 


lo  The  Virgin  Birth 

discussion  of  the  second  part  can  only  be 
entered  into  under  the  supposition  of  posi- 
tive results  of  the  first. 

Since  the  obtaining  of  historical  knowl- 
edge is  never  entirely  independent  of  the 
views,  of  the  presuppositions,  and  the  meth- 
ods with  which  the  inquirer  enters  upon  his 
work,  the  acknowledgment  of  a  miracle 
like  that  of  the  virgin  birth  as  agreeing  with 
the  facts  can  only  be  expected  provided  one  is 
personally  and  on  principle  convinced  of  the 
possibility  of  the  miracle.  It  must  be  de- 
nied to  an  otherwise  dogmatical  attitude 
toward  the  miracle.  The  end  which  can  be 
attained  from  historical  considerations  must 
in  such  case  be  measured  essentially  lower ; 
the  historicity,  in  the  sense  of  historical 
reality,  cannot  be  proved,  but  only  a  possi- 
bility. The  acknowledgment  of  such  a  pos- 
sibility, will,  again,  depend  on  two  things : 
on  the  statement  of  the  sources,  and  on  its 
origin.  In  accordance  with  this  we  pro- 
pound two  questions : 

I.  Is  the  proof  of  the  virgin  birth  of 
Jesus  Christ  possible  historically  (a)  accord- 
ing to  the  statement  of  the  sources,  (&)  ac- 
cording to  its  origin  ? 


The  Virgin  Birth  i  i 

II.  From  what  religious  motives  can  the 
virgin  birth  be  acknowledged  as  real  ? 

I.  (a)  As  immediate  sources  for  all  facts 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  those  writings  have  to 
be  taken  into  account  which  are  gathered 
together  in  the  New  Testament,  and  this 
in  the  form  in  which  we  now  have  them. 
We  therefore  consider  in  the  first  place 
what  the  New  Testament  says  on  the  sub- 
ject. Express  mention  is  made  of  this  only 
in  the  introductory  chapters  of  the  Gos- 
pels of  Matthew  and  Luke.  In  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  all  ancient  texts  agree  in  their  rec- 
ord of  the  virgin  birth  (chapter  i.  27,  35)  ; 
the  attempt  of  some  scholars  to  eliminate 
these  verses,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later  on, 
has  not  the  least  support  in  any  text.  With 
Matthew  it  seems  to  be  otherwise.  It  is 
true  that  in  all  texts,  without  an  exception, 
Matthew  records  the  birth  of  Jesus  of  a  vir- 
gin (i.  18,  seq.),  but  recently  a  strange 
reading  of  verse  16  has  appeared.  In  a 
Syriac  translation  of  the  gospel  found  in  a 
monastery  on  Mount  Sinai  some  years  ago, 
and  designated  as  Syrus  Sinaiticus,  Matt. 
I.  16,  reads,  in  a  literal  translation,  "J^cob 
begat  Joseph,  Joseph,  to  whom  Mary  the  vir- 


12  The  Virgin  Birth 

gin  was  betrothed,  begat  Jesus,  who  is  called 
the  Messiah."  In  the  same  sentence  it  is 
asserted  that  Jesus  was  begotten  by  Joseph 
and  also  allusion  is  made  to  his  virgin  birth, 
which  the  following  verses  attest  in  the  same 
positive  manner  as  the  common  text.  The 
text  of  the  Syrus  Sinaiticus  accordingly 
represents  a  mixed  form,  contradictory  in 
itself,  which  cannot  be  original.  How  did  it 
occur  ?  We  have  no  reason  to  suspect  a  later 
insertion — either  of  the  natural  generation 
in  verse  i6  or  for  the  virgin  birth  here  and 
in  the  following  verses.  There  remains  only 
one  possibility:  to  explain  the  Syriac  text, 
which  is,  after  all,  only  a  translation  from 
its  Greek  original.  From  many  old  Latin  as 
well  as  from  another  Syriac  translation  the 
existence  of  a  Greek  text  in  the  following 
form  necessarily  suggested  itself,  which  was 
found  also  as  really  existing:  "And  Jacob 
begat  Joseph  to  whom  betrothed  Mary  the 
virgin  begat  Jesus  Christ  (Ia«w/3  Se  kyewrjae 
rbv  Icjarjxl)  w  (ivrjaTSV&elv  Mapta  ij  Trap'&evo^ 
kyivvTjas  Jijaovv  Xptardv,  minuscle  346  in 
Gregory,  Prolegomena,  pp.  528,  1251). 
This  text  formed  the  basis  of  the  translation 
of  the  Syrus  Sinaiticus,  whose  peculiarity 


The  Virgin  Birth  13 

consists  in  writing  Joseph  twice  successively. 
Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  the  second  Joseph 
became  a  nominative  out  of  an  accusative 
and  a  subject  of  the  begetting  of  Jesus.  We 
have  consequently  a  false  double  seeing  and 
writing  of  the  one  word  Joseph  in  the  trans- 
lation from  the  Greek  into  the  Syriac ;  an  ex- 
ceedingly harmless  but  very  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  history  of  the  text,  which  only  a 
biased  scientific  semi-outline  could  present  to 
the  unknowing  as  if  it  were  an  old  text  of 
Matthew,  which  clearly  attested  the  genera- 
tion of  Jesus  through  Joseph.  Evidently  we 
have  an  old  Syriac  translation  which  in  one 
half  verse  makes  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph 
while  in  the  other  half  the  narrative  presents 
the  virgin  birth.  And  this  conflated  form  in 
verse  16  originated  most  probably  through  a 
vicious  duplication  of  the  word  Joseph  from 
a  corresponding  Greek  text,  actually  extant, 
which,  like  all  other  Greek  texts,  has  only 
the  virgin  birth.^  So  far  as  we  can  follow 
up  the  text  of  the  first  chapters  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  they  record  the  virgin  birth  in  the 
same  form  and  in  the  same  connection  in 


1  See  Gore  on  Subjects  connected  with  the  Incarnation. 
Appendix.  Also  the  International  Critical  Commentary  on 
Matthew,  p.  6. 


14  The  Virgin  Birth 

which  they  are  still  extant.  And  since  the 
historical  method  by  no  means  requires  that 
both  narratives  be  burdened  with  absurdi- 
ties, and  it  is  rather  more  probable  that  each 
has  a  sense  and  connection,  it  is  well  first 
of  all  to  understand  the  conception  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  had  of  the  virgin  birth, 
without  the  least  regard  to  the  further  ques- 
tion whether  they  thereby  repeat  actual  his- 
tory or  only  their  own  ideas  and  trains  of 
thought.  Matthew  puts  at  the  head  a  gene- 
alogy of  Jesus,  which  he  supplements  with 
clear  references  to  the  following  history  and 
which  is  permeated  by  the  entire  tendency  of 
his  book.  This  shows  his  arrangement  ac- 
cording to  certain  numbers ;  more  clearly  yet 
his  beginning  with  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of 
the  Jewish  people ;  the  marking  the  height  of 
the  Israelitish  history  in  the  kingship  of 
David  as  its  decay  in  the  exile — answering 
the  Judeo-Christian  apologetic  character  of 
his  Gospel.  He  alludes  to  the  special  form  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  mentions  four  women 
who,  notwithstanding  religious  and  moral 
stain — Ruth  a  heathen,  Tamar,  Rahab,  and 
the  wife  of  Urias,  adulteresses — are  never- 
theless  found  worthy  by   God  to  become 


The  Virgin  Birth  15 

ancestresses  of  the  Messiah.  In  an  anti- 
typical  manner,  and  perhaps  in  a  conscious 
opposition  to  the  Jewish  blasphemies  of  the 
illegitimate  birth  of  Mary,  the  special  part 
which  the  virgin  mother  plays  at  the  birth  of 
the  Messiah  is  already  pointed  out  in  the 
genealogy.  Yet  the  pedigree  ends  not  with 
Mary,  but  with  Joseph.  In  how  far  this 
pedigree  of  Joseph,  according  to  the  opinion 
of  the  evangelist,  can  be  of  importance  for 
Mary  and  also  for  her  own  child,  he  indi- 
cates in  an  unmistaken  name  by  calling 
Joseph  the  "husband"  of  Mary  (verse  16), 
who,  hesitating  at  first,  took  her  as  wife  in 
marriage  (verse  25).^  As  wife  Mary,  ac- 
cording to  Jewish  custom,  shared  in  all  the 
rights,  as  also  in  the  tribality  of  her  hus- 
band. Through  her  matrimonial  connection 
with  a  descendant  of  David  she  became  one 
belonging  to  the  race  of  Joseph  and  thereby 
also  of  David.  In  consequence  of  this,  ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  the  child  Jesus  which 
she  had  borne  appears  also  as  a  legitimate 
child  of  Joseph.  Like  Mary,  the  child  too 
obtains  a  part  in  all  the  rights  of  his  legiti- 

»In  a  prophetic  manner  he  is  thus  also  designated  in 
verse  19. 


1 6  The  Virgin  Birth 

mate  matrimonial  father;  above  all  in  his 
race,  into  whose  registry  as  a  matter  of 
course  it  could  only  be  entered  according  to 
existing  right.  The  miracle  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  consists,  according  to  Matthew,  in 
this:  that  Jesus  as  the  legitimate  son  of 
Joseph  is  not  at  the  same  time  also  his 
natural  child  begotten  by  him  in  sexual  in- 
tercourse with  his  wife.  The  beginning  of 
Mary's  pregnancy  is  transferred  before  the 
beginning  of  her  marriage  (verse  i8),  and 
every  carnal  communion  in  wedlock  before 
the  birth  of  the  child  Jesus  is  precluded 
(verse  25).  The  pregnancy  of  Mary  and 
the  generation  of  the  child  Jesus  is  derived 
''from  the  Holy  Ghost"  without  giving  to 
this  notion  within  the  history  of  the  birth 
any  dogmatical  qualification  or  mythological 
setting.  In  like  manner  the  characteristic 
of  the  child  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the 
virgin  Mary,  is  confined  to  the  explanation 
of  his  name,  Jesus,  as  of  one  who  "shall 
save  his  people  from  their  sins"  (verse  21). 
The  virgin  birth  of  this  Saviour  is  looked 
upon  as  a  necessary  outcome  of  a  prophetical 
word  (Isa.  7.  14).  This  will  be  considered 
farther  on.   The  second  chapter  contains  no 


The  Virgin  Birth  17 

contradiction  to  the  narrative  of  the  first, 
but  also  no  new  observations  which  were 
important  for  Matthew's  conception  of  the 
virgin  birth. 

Luke  presents  the  history  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  in  a  larger,  world-historical  and  at  the 
same  time  more  intimate  Jewish  compass. 
He  shows  himself  very  conversant  with  the 
ideal  of  the  Israelitish  cult  and  piety,  as  his 
description  of  the  parents  and  of  the  birth 
of  John  the  Baptist  proves.  Mary  is  intro- 
duced by  him  as  an  espoused  virgin  (i.  27), 
and  at  the  close  of  the  verse  she  is  once  again 
called  a  virgin ;  indicating  thereby  the  theme 
which  rules  the  entire  following  narrative. 
The  man  to  whom  she  is  espoused  is  of  the 
house  of  David  (verse  2y;  comp.  2.  4), 
whereas  nothing  Is  said  of  Mary's  origin, 
much  less  that  she  is  of  the  house  of  David. 
The  connection  of  the  child  born  of  Mary 
with  David  is  founded  rather,  by  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  just  as  by  that  of  Matthew,  upon 
his  relations  to  Joseph,  the  husband  of 
Mary.  Like  the  genealogy  of  Matthew,  that 
exhibited  by  Luke  in  chapter  3  ends  with 
Joseph,  as  whose  son  Jesus  is  indeed  to  be 
considered  according  to  the  current  opinion 


i8  The  Virgin  Birth 

(verse  23)  ;  whereas  Luke  and  his  readers 
by  the  narratives  of  chapters  i  and  2  are 
differently  informed,  and  know  that  he  is 
indeed  a  legitimate  but  not  a  natural  son  of 
Joseph.  The  child  Jesus  is  an  heir  to  the 
throne  of  David  his  father  (i.  32),  because 
Joseph,  by  marrying  the  mother,  has  law- 
fully and  rightly  taken  the  place  of  a  father 
and — this  is  a  peculiar  view  of  Luke — be- 
cause Christ  was  besides  born  in  Bethlehem, 
the  city  of  David  (chapter  2.  4,  1 1 ) . 

The  virgin  Mary  is  saluted  by  an  angel, 
Gabriel:  "Hail,  thou  that  art  highly  fa- 
vored, the  Lord  is  with  thee"  (i.  28).  At 
this  word  "she  was  troubled,  .  .  .  and 
cast  in  her  mind  what  manner  of  salutation 
this  should  be."  The  angel  said  unto  her: 
"Fear  not,  Mary :  for  thou  hast  found  favor 
with  God,  and  behold,  thou  shalt  conceive 
in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and 
shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest; 
and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the 
throne  of  his  father  David:  and  he  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever ;  and 
of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  Then 
said  Mary  unto  the  angel :  How  shall  this  be, 


The  Virgin  Birth  19 

seeing  I  know  not  a  man?  And  the  angel 
answered  and  said  unto  her,  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee;  therefore 
also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of 
thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God"  (Luke 
I.  28-35).  In  this  colloquy  between  the  an- 
gel and  Mary  the  second  answer  of  Mary 
can  elicit  a  reflection.  She  is  only  told  that 
she  shall  conceive  and  bring  forth.  She  is 
betrothed,  and  matrimony  is  impending,  and 
yet  motherhood  seems  to  be  to  her  something 
entirely  remote.  She  even  asserts  that  she 
knows  nothing  of  a  man,  whereas  she  is 
acquainted  with  her  betrothed.  A  little 
familiarity  with  the  situation  and  a  more 
accurate  linguistic  understanding  of  the 
text  allows  this  difficulty  to  exist  only 
for  the  superficial  observer.  The  address  of 
the  angel  and  the  reply  of  Mary  followed 
each  other  in  rapid  succession.  By  reason  of 
the  appearance  of  the  angel  and  of  all  his 
words  from  beginning  to  end  Mary  becomes 
afraid  and  astonished.  She  stands  not — as 
many  book-worms  imagine  the  situation — 
like  a  probationer  before  an  examiner,  who 
coolly  weighs,  carefully  examines  her  mem- 


20  The  Virgin  Birth 

ory  as  to  the  past  and  future,  and  slowly 
gives  her  measured  answers.  She  rather 
answers  in  quick,  timid,  embarrassed,  impul- 
sive manner.  Now  the  angel  had  said  to  her 
that  she  shall  conceive  in  the  womb,  and  this 
with  such  certainty  that  she  transfers  this 
miracle  to  the  immediate  present  hour,^ 
where  she  is  surrounded  by  miracles  and  in 
the  presence  of  the  messenger  of  the  heavenly 
power.  Her  betrothed  is  absent;  how  soon 
the  marriage  was  to  be  consummated  we 
know  not ;  it  might  have  been  soon  but  also 
at  some  distant  period.  In  this  her  perplexity 
the  exclamation  is  well  intelligible,  "How 
shall  this  be!"  And  the  further  addition 
rightly  explained  is  also  entirely  appropriate. 
The  Greek  word  yiyv6(jKeLv,  like  the  corre- 
sponding Hebrew  yada,  may  mean  simply 
to  know  in  the  sense  of  acquaintance  as  well 
as  to  know  in  the  sense  of  sexual  inter- 
course.    In  the  latter  meaning  it  also  oc- 


iThis  is  also  the  opinion  of  the  narrator.  For  in  the 
course  of  his  further  narrative  we  nowhere  find  an  indi- 
cation when  the  otherwise  announced  miracle  could  have 
taken  place.  Rather  we  see  that  after  the  annunciation 
of  the  angel  Mary  very  soon,  "in  those  days,"  leaves 
Nazareth  (i.  39),  visits  her  relative,  Elizabeth,  and  is  at 
once  received  by  her  with  the  words,  "Blessed  are  thou 
among  women  and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  And 
whence  is  this  to  me,  that  the  mother  of  my  Lord  shoiild 
come  to  me?"  (i.  42-43) 


The  Virgin  Birth  21 

curs,  that  is,  in  the  genealogy  (Matt.  i.  25). 
This  term  is  mostly  used  of  man's  behavior 
toward  his  wife,  but  there  are  instances  in 
which  it  is  appHed  to  the  wife.  The  word 
yada  occurs  three  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
with  reference  to  the  wife  and  three  times 
it  is  translated  by  the  Seventy — whose  lan- 
guage, according  to  most  recent  researches, 
has  influenced  the  usage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  the  word  yiyvcjaKsiv  (to  know) 
used  in  Luke  i.  34,  namely.  Gen.  19.  5; 
Num.31.  i7;Judg.  11.39-  -- 

According  to  this — and  there  is  nothing 
which  can  be  adduced  against  it — the  ex- 
clamation of  Mary  obtains  the  following  lin- 
guistically justified  meaning  which  answers 
the  entire  situation  as  well  as  the  connection : 
How  is  it  possible  that  I  should  now  con- 
ceive, having  no  intimate  connection  what- 
ever with  a  man !  This  explanation  still  gains 
in  certainty  when  one  convinces  himself  of 
the  inadmissibility  and  uselessness  of  other 
efforts  to  remove  the  dif^culty  in  question. 
Of  these  we  shall  only  mention  one,  which, 
though  the  most  arbitrary,  has  nevertheless 
found  favor  with  many  expositors.  One 
explains  verses  34,  35,  simply  as  a  later  in- 


22  The  Virgin  Birth 

terpolatlon  and  addition,  and  thus  removes 
the  virgin  birth  from  the  angeHc  address. 
Aside  from  the  consideration  that  the  con- 
nection between  verses  33  and  36  is  by  no 
means  improved  through  this  erasure,  a 
fact  to  which  a  prominent  scholar  (Hilgen- 
feld)  calls  attention  although  he  rejects  the 
virgin  birth,  the  unsuitableness  of  Mary's 
answer  and  the  interruption  of  the  connec- 
tion become  still  more  evident.  A  sensible 
interpolator — and  the  question  can  here  only 
be  of  such  a  one — is  the  very  man  who,  be- 
fore and  after  doing  his  work  of  interpola- 
tion, once  more  very  carefully  examines  the 
correction  and  smoothes  the  seams. 
The  desire  to  erase  verses  34  and  35 
can  only  be  understood  from  the  tendency  to 
remove  a  tout  prix  from  the  text  of  Luke 
the  record  of  the  virgin  birth;  that — again 
without  any  textual  or  contextual  reason 
— one  also  undertakes  to  remove  in  chapters 
I.  2y,  Trdpdevog,  virgin,  and  in  3.  23,  ^? 
evofii^ero,  "that  shall  be  called,"  cannot  sur- 
prise him  who  again  and  again  observes  how 
the  Roman  principle,  to  correct  history  by 
the  dogma,  unscrupulously  guides  many 
"virtually"  Protestant  works. 


The  Virgin  Birth  2^ 

After  the  annunciation  of  the  angel  the 
narrative  makes  the  pregnancy  of  Mary 
commence  at  once.  For  when  she  soon 
afterward  visits  Elizabeth  the  latter  salutes 
her  already  as  "mother  of  the  Lord"  (verse 
43).  Not  long  afterward  the  consummation 
of  the  marriage  must  have  also  taken  place, 
for,  chapter  2.  5,  according  to  the  best  read- 
ing, Mary  is  called  the  wife  of  Joseph,  whom 
he  takes  with  him  on  his  journey  to  Bethle- 
hem. As  the  wife  of  the  Davidic  Joseph 
she  brings  forth  the  Messiah  in  the  city  of 
David.  Since  the  narrator  believed  his 
readers  capable  of  remembering  at  the  read- 
ing of  the  second  chapter  the  communica- 
tions of  the  first,  he  does  not  refer  again 
to  the  miraculous  promises  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus.  While  Matthew  had  pointed  out  only 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  author  of  the  child 
Jesus,  Luke  explains  this  by  the  parallel 
phrase,  "The  Power  of  the  Highest."  The 
child  accordingly  does  not  owe  his  origin  to 
a  mundane  but  to  a  supramundane  power, 
and  this  is  then  more  accurately  designated 
as  the  Spirit,  who  brings  religio-ethical 
perfection. 

Wherever  in  the  fore-histories  the  ques- 


24  The  Virgin  Birth 

tion  is  of  the  Spirit  of  God  the  power 
of  God  is  meant,  which  gives  man  a  religio- 
ethical  perfection  and  qualifies  him  for  a 
corresponding  practical  proof.  It  neither 
refers  to  the  third  trinitarian  person  nor  to  a 
physico-sensuous  procreative  power  of  the 
deity.  The  product  of  this  divine  effort  in 
the  virgin  Mary  is,  according  to  that,  char- 
acterized as  something  "holy,"  dedicated  to 
God,  religio-ethical,  spotless  and — Luke 
brings  here  a  view  which  goes  beyond  Mat- 
thew— ^as  Son  of  God.  The  peculiar  gen- 
eration establishes  a  peculiar  relation  be- 
tween the  child  Jesus  and  God;  as  the  son 
owes  his  entire  existence  to  the  father  thus 
Jesus  to  God,  and  as  the  son  has  his  essence 
from  the  father,  thus  Jesus  has  his  holiness 
also  from  the  holy  God.  The  existence  of 
Jesus  and  his  religio-ethical  perfection  are 
most  closely  interlaced  with  his  birth  of  the 
virgin  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  like 
thought  expresses  with  a  special  turn  also 
the  genealogy  of  Jesus  in  the  form  given  by 
Luke  (3.  23,  seq.).  It  rises  from  the  present 
and  leads  the  ancestry  of  Jesus  through 
Joseph  not  only  to  the  ancestor  of  the 
Israelitic  people,  but  up  to  the  first  man,  in 


The  Virgin  Birth  25 

order  to  qualify  him  as  son  of  God.  Jesus 
thereby  appears  as  the  Son  of  man,  being 
for  that  very  reason  also  the  Son  of  God; 
yea,  it  suggests  itself  to  assure  an  intended 
parallelism  between  the  origin  of  Adam  and 
Jesus.  As  this  came  directly  from  God,  so 
also  that  as  "the  second  Adam." 

What  the  prologues  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
offer  for  the  assumption  of  a  virgin  birth 
can  be  comprised  in  the  following  sentences : 
Jesus  is  the  natural  son  of  the  virgin  Mary, 
bom  of  her  in  marriage  with  Joseph.  Since 
Joseph  was  the  matrimonial  father  of  the 
child,  and  assumed  all  duties  of  a  father  to- 
ward him,  the  child  actually  and  legally  par- 
took of  the  race  of  Joseph  and — since  it  was 
Davidic — became  himself  one  belonging  to 
David,  especially  as  he  was  born  also  in  the 
city  of  David.  The  author  of  his  natural  life 
was  God's  creative  power,  his  Spirit,  the 
mediator  of  all  religio-ethical  perfection.  On 
this  account  the  child  which  by  this  power 
was  called  into  existence  bore  the  character 
of  holiness  in  the  sense  of  religio-ethical  per- 
fection, as  well  as  that  of  divine  sonship  in 
parallel  with  the  direct  origin  of  the  first  man 
from  God. 


26  The  Virgin  Birth 

Before  the  origin  of  this  statement  of  the 
sources  is  examined  according  to  its  Hterary 
side,  as  well  as  to  content,  the  attitude  of 
the  other  New  Testament  writings  must 
be  estabHshed,  since  it  is  important  for  the 
solution  of  the  question.  Beyond  all  con- 
troversy is  the  fact  that  neither  a  direct 
testimony  nor  a  direct  denial  of  the  vir- 
gin birth  is  to  be  found  in  the  other  parts  of 
the  New  Testament.  We  nowhere  read, 
Jesus  is  born  of  a  virgin ;  but  neither  do  we 
read,  Jesus  is  not  born  of  a  virgin,  or,  which 
is  the  same,  Jesus  is  begotten  by  Joseph  in  a 
natural  manner.  The  inquiry  is  on  this  ac- 
count put  upon  an  essentially  unsafe  ground, 
since  it  alone  can  decide  whether  indirect 
testimonies  and  allusions  exist  which  presup- 
pose a  knowledge  of  the  virgin  birth,  or 
whether  opinions  are  expressed,  opposed  to 
this  assumption,  which  could  at  least  not 
have  been  expressed  with  such  knowledge. 
Turning  to  the  first  task,  all  the  passages 
treating  of  the  Davidic  sonship,  the  divine 
sonship  of  Christ,  and  designating  him  as 
holy,  sinless,  as  the  second  Adam  and  Son  of 
man,  must  be  eliminated  as  inconclusive. 
For,  though  we  also  asserted  that  in  the  pro- 


The  Virgin  Birth  27 

logue  all  these  ideas  stand  in  a  certain  con- 
nection with  the  virgin  birth,  the  inverted  in- 
ference is  not  admissible  that,  where  they  are 
applied,  this  peculiar  form  of  Jesus's  origin  is 
presupposed.  The  point  of  controversy  is 
rather  to  be  left  open.  First  of  all  the  very 
New  Testament  declarations  whether  Christ, 
as  son  of  David  and  son  of  God  could  not 
also  have  been  acknowledged  as  holy  and 
sinless  without  his  virgin  birth — yea,  in  con- 
tradiction to  it. 

In  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  we 
find  no  passages  w^hich  could  be  referred  to. 
In  Mark  6.  3,  the  people  of  Nazareth  are  sur- 
prised at  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  recalling  to 
their  memory,  "Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the 
son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James,  and 
Joses,  and  of  Juda,  and  Simeon  ?"  Jesus  is 
here  only  called  the  son  of  Mary.  Why? 
Because  Joseph  was  already  dead,  we  are 
told;  this  may  be  possible,  but  we  have  no 
certain  knowledge  of  it.  Nevertheless  we 
shall  not  adduce  this  passage  as  referring  to 
the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus.  For  the 
people  will  only  express  surprise  that  one 
who  is  of  their  kind,  whose  simple  family 
relations   they  know,   is   such   a  powerful 


28  The  Virgin  Birth 

preacher.  Had  they  known  his  virgin  birth 
there  had  been  less  cause  for  this  surprise. 
The  Gospel  of  John  describes  at  the  begin- 
ning Jesus's  "eternal  birth"  and  cares  not  for 
the  earthly  beginnings  of  his  life;  only 
one  sentence  seems  to  rest  on  the  notion 
of  the  virgin  birth.  Of  those  who  be- 
come members  of  the  eternal  Son  of 
God  it  is  said  that  they  were  not  "born 
of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God" 
(i.  13).  The  spiritual  birth  is  placed  in 
opposition  to  the  natural  birth,  which  is  a 
birth  of  blood  and  of  the  will  of  the  flesh; 
but  the  addition  "of  the  will  of  man"  does 
not  satisfactorily  explain  itself  since  the 
natural  birth  was  already  fully  determined 
by  the  two  preceding  expressions.  For  that 
reason  another  line  of  thought  commences 
at  this  passage.  The  birth  of  the  Christian 
is  made  parallel  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
it  stands  not  in  opposition  to  it,  like  to  the 
natural  of  man,  but  is  similar  to  it,  because 
this  itself  was  already  supernatural;  came 
about  without  "the  will  of  man."  John  al- 
ludes in  this  passage  to  the  virgin  birth  of 
Jesus.    This  is  the  more  plausible  to  every- 


The  Virgin  Birth  29 

one  who  knows  the  other  attitude  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  toward  gospel  tradition. 
However  it  may  be  with  the  origin  of  the 
notion  of  the  virgin  birth,  it  existed  at  the 
time  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  of 
John  and  was  knoAvn  to  him.  Those  espe- 
cially who  place  the  time  of  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel  of  John  in  the  second  century 
cannot  possibly  deny  its  acquaintance  with 
the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus,  since  Igna- 
tius/ who  wrote  about  this  time,  repeatedly 
attests  it.2 

It  is  otherwise  with  Paul.  His  epistles 
were  written  long  before  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  and  even  under  the  suppo- 

^Thus  he  writes  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (19): 
"Hidden  from  the  prince  of  this  world  were  the  virginity 
of  Mary  and  her  child-bearing,  and  likewise  the  death  of 
the  Lord — Three  mysteries  to  be  cried  aloud  which  were 
wrought  in  the  silence  of  God."  In  this  passage  the 
virginity  of  Mary  is  as  certain  a  point  of  doctrine  to  the 
writer  as  is  the  crucifixion.  Again,  in  his  letter  to  the 
Smymaeans  (i),  he  says  that  he  is  "firmly  persuaded  as 
touching  our  Lord  that  he  is  truly  of  the  race  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  Son  of  God  by  [the  Divine] 
win  and  power,  truly  bom  of  a  virgin  .  .  .  truly 
nailed  up  for  our  sakes  in  the  flesh." 

2Another  delineation  in  the  Gospel  of  John  may  possibly 
be  explained  by  the  thought  of  the  virgin  birth.  At  the 
marriage  in  Cana,  the  iirst  miracle  which  Jesus  did,  his 
mother  betrays  a  very  remarkable  confidence  in  Jesus 's 
miraculous  power,  to  which  she  still  clings  after  the  re- 
fusal (2.  3,  5).  Should  this  confidence  be  thought  of  as 
founded  on  the  miracle  which  Mary  herself  experienced 
with  reference  to  Jesus?     It  is  by  no  means  impossible. 


30  The  Virgin  Birth 

sition  of  the  historicity  of  the  virgin  birth 
it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  Paul  should 
have  been  informed  of  it  in  the  early  period 
of  his  activity/  since  his  knowledge  in  gen- 
eral did  not  comprise  the  entire  matter  of  the 
Gospels.  In  Gal.  4.  4,  Paul  says  that  in  the 
fullness  of  time  God  sent  forth  his  Son, 
"made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law." 
By  this  Paul  means  to  prove  that  Christ  en- 
tered into  the  like  situation  as  the  men,  espe- 
cially the  Jews,  of  his  time  in  order  to  be  of 
real  service  to  them.  He  uses  an  indefinite 
mode  of  expression,  more  sketching  than 
working  out.  This  is  seen  already  from  his 
confining  himself  to  two  facts :  he  mentions  a 
law  in  general,  not  specifically  Mosaic ;  then 
he  uses  the  term  woman  instead  of  mother 
or  mentioning  the  name  of  the  mother.  The 
mentioning  of  the  woman  is  obscure  and  this 
the  more  as  the  participle  in  question  is  not 
derived  from  ysvvdv,  =  to  bring  forth,  which 
indeed  would  have  required  the  mention  of 
the  mother,  but  from  ylyvea^ai,  =  to  become, 
originate,  which  can  just  as  well  be  used  of 
the  father  or  of  both  parents.     Now,  since 


^But  see  The  Incarnation  and  Recent  Criticism,  chap. 
V,  p.  114,  Eaton  &  Mains,  New  York,  for  the  opposite  view. 


The  Virgin  Birth  31 

in  the  preceding  verses  absolutely  no  motive 
is  to  be  discovered  for  the  exclusive  mention 
of  the  female  descent  in  characterizing  his 
true  humanity,  it  becomes  probable,  after  all, 
that  Paul  knew  of  the  special  case  about  the 
birth  of  Jesus.  That  he  does  not  express 
this  more  definitely  is  because  he  meant  to 
give  here  only  statements  in  general  outlines 
which  everyone  familiar  with  the  matter 
could  at  once  fill  out  for  himself,  those  with 
reference  to  the  form  of  the  law  as  well  as 
those  with  reference  to  the  birth.  If  one 
will  not  accept  this  interpretation,  which  of 
course  is  not  more  than  a  well-founded  sup- 
position, he  must  consider  the  choice  of  the 
term  by  Paul  as  purely  accidental. 

The  supposed  refutals  of  the  virgin  birth 
which  one  may  find  in  definite  statements  of 
the  people  and  apostolic  men  and  in  some 
events  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  especially  in 
the  manifest  behavior  of  his  natural  relatives 
may  now  be  considered.  Commencing  with 
the  latter,  we  find  the  particular  proofs  based 
on  a  peculiarly  dogmatic  view.  The  phenom- 
enon obtrudes  itself  plainly  especially  in  our 
case,  that  critics  willing  to  be  ''liberal"  and 
"modern"  find  themselves  unconsciously  ini 


32  The  Virgin  Birth 

the  spell  of  very  old  and  stupid  orthodox 
formulations  of  the  question  which  they  only 
deny  but  do  not  affirm — an  indeed  not  very 
spirited  activity.  One  starts  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  knowledge  of  the  virgin  birth 
includes  every  other  knowledge  with  refer- 
ence to  the  person  of  Jesus — for  example,  his 
divine  sonship — that  it  moreover  makes 
everyone  who  has  this  knowledge  infallible 
and  holy  and  that  it  preserves  one  from 
all  fluctuations  of  the  religious  life  and  false 
attitude  toward  Christ.  One  observes,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  parents  of  Jesus,  Mary  be- 
fore all,  frequently  marvel  at  Jesus,  under- 
stand not  his  words,  yea,  throw  obstacles  in 
the  w^ay  of  his  peculiar  Messianic  practical 
proof,  and,  with  the  help  of  presumed  dog- 
matics, infers  therefrom  contradictions  to 
the  virgin  birth.  Even  within  the  Lukanic 
prologue  such  a  trait  is  recorded.  The  par- 
ents are  displeased  that  the  boy  Jesus,  when 
twelve  years  of  age,  remained  alone  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  Mary — though  in  a  very  tender 
manner — reproaches  him  when  he  is  found. 
Jesus  answered:  "Wist  ye  not  that  I 
must  be  about  my  Father's  business?" 
To  which  the  account  adds :  "They  under- 


The  Virgin  Birth  33 

stood  not  the  saying  which  he  spake 
unto  them"  (Luke  2.  48-50).  That 
Mary  because  of  the  miraculous  birth 
should  have  resigned  the  education  of  the 
child  Jesus,  and  refrained  from  reproof 
when  she  believed  there  was  occasion  for  it, 
is  certainly  more  than  an  absurd  supposition. 
That  the  parents  were  amazed  at  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  boy  who  till  now,  and  again 
afterward,  was  subject  to  them  (verse  51), 
and  understood  not  the  mysterious  word  is 
not  surprising.  No  one  will  blame  them  for 
it  especially  since  at  present  most  interpre- 
ters, despite  their  knowledge  of  the  virgin 
birth,  understand  it  otherwise.  Still  less 
cause  for  surprise  is  afforded  by  the  narra- 
tive, Mark  3.  21,  31-35,  when  one  abandons 
the  wooden  dogmatics  and  psychology  char- 
acterized above.  Jesus  had  displayed  a  very 
exhausting  activity  among  his  people,  with 
such  a  result  that  because  of  the  multitude 
he  could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread.  His 
kinsmen,  no  doubt  his  mother  and  brothers, 
hear  of  it  and  go  out  to  lay  hold  of  him; 
"For  they  said,  He  is  beside  himself"  (verse 
21).  When  his  mother  and  brethren  came 
and  sent  a  message  to  him — because  of  the 


34  The  Virgin  Birth 

multitude  they  could  not  get  inside — intima- 
ting the  purpose  of  their  coming  to  with- 
draw him  from  his  work,  Jesus  answered: 
**Who  is  my  mother,  or  my  brethren?"  And 
with  a  glance  at  those  which  sat  about  him : 
"Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren.  For 
whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the  same 
is  my  brother,  and  my  sister,  and  my 
mother"  (31-35).  Mary  experienced  here, 
what  John  the  Baptist  and  many  thousand 
"orthodox"  followers  of  Jesus  experienced, 
that  despite  the  knowledge  of  the  miracle 
of  his  life  she  nevertheless  cannot  accommo- 
date herself  to  all  details  of  his  work  and  is 
offended  at  him.  Yes,  one  can  say,  just  be- 
cause she  experienced  a  miracle  in  him  she 
expected  other  miracles  from  him,  and  not 
a  wearing  in  continual  low  service.  Mary 
was  mistaken,  and  took  offense  at  the  man- 
ner of  Jesus,  because  of  the  very  miracle 
of  his  birth.  And  Jesus  himself,  with  the 
icy  coolness  which  he  observed  toward  all 
purely  natural  family  relations  as  soon  as 
they  conflicted  with  his  divine  relations  and 
Messianic  calling,  asserts  that  those  only 
have  a  claim  to  the  closest  communion  with 
him  who  do  the  will  of  God.    Since  the  vir- 


The  Virgin  Birth  35 

gin  birth  did  in  no  wise  hinder  Mary  at 
times  not  to  do  the  will  of  God,  his  knowl- 
edge of  that  fact  did  also  not  hinder  Jesus 
from  hinting  at  it. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  baptism  of  Christ 
cannot  be  consistent  with  the  virgin  birth. 
In  order  to  state  a  very  substantial  contra- 
diction, a  special  text  of  the  word  which  the 
Father  addresses  to  the  Son  must  indeed  first 
be  supposed  with  the  close,  "This  day  have 
I  begotten  thee,"  which,  however,  though 
suitable — besides  being  an  Old  Testament 
quotation,  from  Psalm  2 — is  after  all  to  be 
tmderstood  figuratively  and  not  literally. 
The  baptism  of  John  is  said  to  describe  in 
the  oldest  form  how  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God  was  thought  of.  True,  it  is  un- 
demonstrable  that  it  once  had  this  signifi- 
cance for  Christendom,  but  otherwise  its  al- 
leged duplication  by  the  virgin  birth  and  its 
combination  with  that  in  two  Gospels  is  in- 
conceivable. Having  a  sufficient  proof  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ  why  did  one  seek  for 
another? — and  how  was  it  conceivable  that 
two  men  still  made  room  for  it  in  their  Gos- 
pels after  having  already  premised  the  virgin 
birth,  which  seemed  to  them  more  pertinent  ? 


36  The  Virgin  Birth 

Should  one  say  that  the  evangehsts  united 
with  each  other,  the  supposition  Hes  near  that 
on  the  whole  the  narratives  belong  together 
because  they  do  not  contradict  themselves — 
which  is  true. 

Each  time  the  Spirit  is  connected  with 
Jesus.  At  the  birth  he  appears  as  the  author 
of  the  entire  existence  of  Jesus  and  as  crea- 
tor of  his  religio-ethical  perfection;  at  the 
baptism  he  is  given  to  him  as  the  leading 
principle  of  his  public  activity,  which  now 
commences.  The  Spirit  at  baptism  leads 
Jesus  to  the  true  conception  of  his  Messianic 
activity  and  to  the  rejection  of  all  wrong 
ways  in  it;  this  proves  clearly  the  conse- 
quent history  of  the  temptation.  The  dif- 
ference is  best  explained  by  a  glance  at  a 
kindred  view  by  Paul.  Paul  knows  a  two- 
fold mission  of  the  Spirit  and  therefore  also 
a  twofold  endowment  of  the  Christian  with 
it.  At  one  time  the  Spirit  is  the  creator  of 
the  new  religio-ethical  personality  and  again 
he  is  the  principle,  the  power,  qualifying  the 
individual  for  special  wondrous  practical 
proofs.  With  the  first  the  second  is  by  no 
means  yet  given,  whereas  the  second  only 
takes  place  where  the  first  exists.  Thus  there 


The  Virgin  Birth  37 

is  also  a  difference  between  the  deduction 
of  the  personality  of  Christ  from  the 
case  in  the  stories  of  the  birth,  and  the 
foundation  of  his  office  upon  the  Spirit.  This 
had  indeed  never  fallen  to  his  lot  had  that 
not  already  existed,  so  that  the  baptism  with 
Spirit  presupposes  the  birth  by  Spirit.  Over 
him  only  who  by  birth  was  the  Son  of  God 
the  voice  could  be  heard  at  the  baptism, 
"Thou  art  my  son" ;  to  him  only  whose  ex- 
istence descended  from  the  Holy  Ghost  could 
the  Holy  Ghost  come  in  such  form,  as  he 
came  at  the  baptism  for  the  Messiah's  calling. 
It  may  be  that,  from  this  twofold  matter  of 
fact,  no  irrelevant  difficulties  may  arise  for 
the  dogmatical  total  conception  of  the  person 
of  Christ;  in  the  historical  tradition  of  the 
evangelists  and  in  history  itself  the  virgin 
birth  and  John's  baptism  do  not  contradict 
each  other. 

Some  statements  conflicting  with  the  vir- 
gin birth  one  notices  in  Luke's  prologue 
itself.  Joseph  is  called  the  father  of  Jesus 
(2.  33)  ;  mention  is  made  of  the  parents 
of  Jesus  (2.  2j,  41),  and  even  of  the 
days  "of  their  purification"  in  the  plural. 
According  to  the  above  expositions  on  the 


38  The  Virgin  Birth 

view  of  the  two  fore-histories  concerning 
the  lawful  paternity  of  Joseph,  the  entering 
of  Joseph  upon  the  full  place  of  father  and 
parent  of  the  child  Jesus  something  is  said 
that  is  a  matter  of  course.  Exactly  the  same 
is  the  case  with  the  opinion  of  the  people, 
frequently  recorded  in  the  Gospels  (John 
I.  45 ;  6.  42;  Luke  4.  22),  that  Jesus  is  the 
son  of  Joseph.  The  people  could  never  have 
been  of  another  opinion  since  it  never  could 
have  occurred  either  to  Jesus  or  to  his  rela- 
tives to  deliver  up  this  delicate  secret  to  the 
masses,  who  were  no  less  fond  of  ridicule 
then  than  today.  Whoever  imagines  that 
the  evangelists  should  every  time  have  cor- 
rected the  erroneousness  of  the  popular  view 
— at  least  perhaps  in  a  small  annotation — 
has  no  idea  of  the  way  the  people  are  treated 
in  the  Gospels  and  also  in  other  historical 
books.  According  to  the  evangelists  the 
people,  and  partly  also  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
have  mostly  an  erroneous  opinion  of  him 
which  is  entirely  superficial  and  does  not 
penetrate  the  depths.  The  false  opinion  of 
the  masses  as  to  the  natural  origin  of  Jesus 
is  in  line  with  their  misunderstandings  of 
him  in  other  particulars.     And  the  conten- 


The  Virgin  Birth  39 

tion  that  Jesus  might  b^st  have  won  the 
people  to  himself  by  reveahng  to  them  his 
supernatural  birth  also  misses  the  mark, 
since  Jesus  never  produced,  nor  v^ished  to 
produce,  faith  by  his  public  miracles.  This 
being  the  case,  how  could  he  expect  an  effect 
from  a  past  miracle  and  one  of  such  unique 
character  ? 

Thus  only  two  passages  remain  which 
seem  to  preclude  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth. 
In  Acts  2.  30,  Peter  quotes  a  word  of  David, 
from  Psa.  132.  11,  that  God  hath  sworn 
with  an  oath  to  him  that  "of  the  fruit 
of  his  loins"  one  should  sit  on  his  throne — a 
promise  which  Peter  sees  fulfilled  in  Jesus. 
In  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans Paul  characterizes  Jesus  as  one  who 
"was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  according 
to  the  flesh"  (Rom.  i.  3).  From  both  pas- 
sages the  inference  is  made  that  Jesus,  as  to 
his  human  nature,  must  be  begotten  from  the 
Davidic  race  by  a  Davidic  descendant.  And 
this  conception  would  be,  indeed,  the  natural 
one  under  the  supposition  that  there  existed 
no  other  tradition  concerning  the  way  by 
which  Jesus  belonged  to  the  house  of  David. 
But  we  have  such  a  tradition  in  Matthew 


40  The  Virgin  Birth 

and  Luke;  and  the  question  arises  whether 
these  declarations  conflict  with  each  other. 
He  who  is  acquainted  with  the  Greek  and, 
nuoreover,  with  Scripture  usage,  will  decide 
that  they  do  not.  In  the  quotation  of  Peter 
a  citation  is  involved.  The  term  "fruit  of 
his  loins"  is  not  coined  by  any  New  Testa- 
ment writer,  but  simply  accepted;  and  it  is 
in  keeping  with  the  peculiarity  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  be  observed  in  uncounted  pas- 
sages, to  apply  Old  Testament  phrases  in 
circumstances  where  every  expression, 
every  figure,  does  not  apply,  and  with  such 
we  are  concerned  here.  Peter  simply  es- 
tablishes the  close  connection  between  Christ 
and  the  house  of  David  by  an  Old  Testament 
figure,  without  thinking  of  its  minute  ad- 
justment. 

When  Paul  uses  the  term  "seed,"  also  in 
conformity  with  Old  Testament  usage,  it  re- 
quires only  a  look  into  the  lexicon  to  ascer- 
tain that  with  him  the  thought  of  the  man 
as  the  bearer  of  the  seed  has  receded  behind 
the  general  meaning  "offspring."  Paul 
therefore  states  that  Christ  in  his  human 
nature  belongs  to  the  posterity  of  David, 
without   prejudicating,    or    asserting   to    a 


The  Virgin  Birth  41 

"haw"  in  the  sense  of  the  evangehsts,  be- 
cause the  question  has  never  occurred  to 
him. 

Study  of  the  New  Testament  shows  that  a 
direct  and  detailed  attestation  of  the  virgin 
birth  is  found  only  in  the  introductions  of 
Matthew  and  Luke;  that  John,  probably, 
and  Paul,  perhaps,  allude  to  it,  each  in  one 
passage.  Facts  and  statements  which  pre- 
clude it  are  nowhere  found  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  two  figures  and  formulas  on  the 
Davidic  sonship,  voiced  in  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament,  neither  affirm  it  nor 
deny  it.  To  infer  anything  from  this  for  or 
against  the  historicity  of  the  virgin  birth  is 
not  possible  from  the  standpoint  of  the  his- 
torian. The  frequently  expressed  opinion 
that  a  story  plainly  attested  only  in  two  pas- 
sages of  the  New  Testament,  and  nowhere 
else,  is  open  to  suspicion,  if  laid  down  as  a 
rule  would  consistently  entail  consequences 
which  no  one  is  willing  to  take  upon  himself. 
Jesus'  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  recorded 
only  twice  in  the  Gospels,  otherwise  no- 
where ;  the  samie  is  the  case  with  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  The  parables  of  the  prodigal  son 
and  the  good  Samaritan  we  read  in  one 


42  The  Virgin  Birth 

Gospel  only.  If  one  is  not  willing  to  assume, 
on  the  basis  of  these  observations,  the  in- 
credibility, of  all  those  narratives,  let  him 
also  do  it  no  more  with  the  story  of  the 
virgin  birth;  the  reproach  of  inconsiderate 
and  illogical  thinking  were  otherwise  not  to 
be  avoided. 

As  little  is  it  possible  tO'  deprive  the 
sources  of  credibility  on  account  of  the  dif- 
ferences existing.  Luke  and  Matthew  state, 
indeed,  so  many  particulars  concerning  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  first  years  of  his  life, 
that  their  combination  in  an  harmonious 
whole  is  difficult,  and,  perhaps,  in  every  de- 
tail impossible.  The  newer  historical 
method  advocates,  however,  the  principle — 
Lessing  was  its  inventor — that  the  trust- 
worthiness of  an  historical  fact  increases 
with  the  number  of  independent  accounts, 
varying  in  details  which  testify  of  it.  Would 
Matthew  and  Luke  harmonize  completely  as 
to  details,  in  place  of  independent  sources, 
we  should  have  only  one  authority  for  the 
virgin  birth  which  might  excite  the  sus- 
picion of  having  been  artificially  adjusted,  or 
^'worded."  From  the  New  Testament  itself, 
therefore,  from  a  purely  historical  stand- 


The  Virgin  Birth  43 

point,  a  proof  for  or  against  the  historicity 
of  the  virgin  birth  can  in  no  direction  be  in- 
ferred. We  only  draw  near  the  question  by 
tracing  in  the  sequel  the  origin  of  the  New 
Tiestament  ideas  concerning  the  birth  of 
Jesus. 

(&)  Inquiry  intO'  the  origin  of  an  account 
must  be  made  as  to  its  form  and  as  to  its 
contents.  In  our  department  it  is  ahvays 
literary-historical  as  well  as  religious- 
historical.  We  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  by 
whom  the  introductions  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  were  composed  and  w^hether  at  some 
former  time  they  occupied  perhaps  a  dif- 
ferent— possibly  independent — literary  po- 
sition and  were  not  always  combined  with 
the  entire  Gospel  books.  And  we  consider, 
in  the  second  place,  whence  came  the  con- 
tents of  these  narratives — from  the  personal 
experiences  of  the  authors  or  from  certain 
historical  tradition — from  their  imagination 
or  from  general  religious  convictions  of 
Judaism  and  heathenism.  Only  from  this 
twofold  mode  of  consideration  can  certain 
results  be  expected.  For  showing-  that  the 
introductions  inseparably  belong  to  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  does  neither 


2J4  The  Virgin  Birth 

prove  the  trustworthiness  of  their  contents, 
nor,  vice  versa,  does  their  origin  from  later 
or  earlier  literary  creations  prove  them  leg- 
endary. It  is  only  after  the  origin-possi- 
bilities of  their  contents  have  also  been  con- 
sidered that  a  true  verdict  can  be  given. 

That  chapters  i  and  2  belong  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew  as  we  now  have  it  cannot  be 
doubted  on  account  of  the  facts  already  in- 
dicated. In  them,  beginning  with,  the 
genealogy,  the  tendency  of  the  entire  Gospel, 
as  well  as  its  linguistic  character,  express 
themselves  so  clearly  that  they  must  have 
originated  with  the  Gospel  in  the  present 
form.  But  since  our  Gospel  of  Matthew  is 
said  to  be  only  the  later  Greek  compilation  of 
an  Aramaically  written  proto-Matthew,  it  is 
possible  that  the  introduction  does  not  yet 
belong  to  it.  But  there  is  no  certainty  about 
this.  The  whole  proto-Matthew  is  not  the 
Aramaic  primitive  form  of  our  Matthew — 
it  is  probably  a  fabrication  which  originated 
in  the  nineteenth  century — not  in  the  first — 
througli  the  misunderstanding  of  an  old 
patristic  passage,  and  which  has,  therefore, 
been  buried  again  at  the  beginning  of  the 
twentieth   century  even   by  the  most  ad- 


The  Virgin  Birth  45 

vanced  and  learned  scholars.^  The  detailed 
shaping  of  this  proto-Matthew  as  a  book 
containing  only  discourses  has,  first  of  all, 
no  claim  on  historical  existence,  since  we 
have  no  trace  of  such  a  book  in  the  ancient 
church  and  her  witnesses.  So  far  as  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  stands  in  the  light  of 
history,  chapters  i  and  2  are  connected 
with  it. 

The  case,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
different  with  Luke.  About  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  A.  D.,  a  certain  Marcion  is 
said  to  have  had  a  Gospel  similar  to  that  of 
Luke,  but  without  our  opening  chapters,  and 
these  might,  therefore,  be  a  later  accretion 
to  that  Gospel  of  Marcion.  But  investi- 
gations acknowledged  by  all  competent 
critics — even  by  the  most  determined  op- 
ponents of  the  virgin  birth — have  shown 
that  Marcion's  Gospel  was  rather  a  mutila- 
tion of  our  present  Gospel  of  Luke,  which 
he  treated  as  he  did  other  New  Testament 
writings,  in  order  to  make  them  accord  with 
his  doctrine. 

No  better  is  the  case  with  a  newly  made 


iSee  the  third  edition  of  Zahn*s  Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament,  just  published. 


46  The  Virgin  Birth 

discovery  from  which  we  learn  that  in  the 
additions  to  the  Armenian  translation  of  a 
certain  Ephraem  Syriis,  this  reading  is  said 
to  be  found:  *'The  Gospel  of  Luke  begins 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ."  Aside  from 
the  uncertain  and  late  origin  of  this  state- 
ment, aside  also  from  its  uncertain  text,  it 
will  not  at  all  separate  the  introduction  from 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,  for  to  it  an  epilogue  is 
appended  in  which  it  is  expressly  said  that 
Luke  begins  the  narrative  of  the  life  of 
Jesus^ — only  in  the  sense  of  his  public  Mes- 
sianic activity — with  the  baptism^  of  John — 
*^after  he  had  first  spoken  of  his  incarnation, 
and  of  the  kingdom  which  commenced  with 
David,  and  of  Abraham."  This  conception 
is  the  more  safe  since  that  Ephraem  in  his 
commentary,  to  which  the  alleged  notice  is 
appended,  has  himself  interpreted  the  in- 
fancy histories. 

It  is  plain  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  always 
had  the  fore-histories,  which  must  conse- 
quently be  considered  as  the  elements  of  two 
Gospel  writings  composed  between  A.  D.  60 
and  A.  D.  80.  With  this  assertion  the  lit- 
erary inquiry,  however,  is  not  yet  completed. 
Luke  in  his  preface  expressly  refers  to  other 


The  Virgin  Birth  47 

compositions  of  the  Gospel  history  known  to 
him,  and  thus  it  is  very  well  possible  that  he 
derived  his  fore-history,  or  prologue,  from 
such  a  source.  On  account  of  the  differences 
already  noticed,  which  exist  between  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  two  or,  more  correctly,  three 
things  are  impossible.  Matthew  can  neither 
have  derived  from  Luke,  nor  Luke  from 
Matthew,  nor  can  both  have  had  a  like  com- 
mon source  as  basis.  The  refusal  of  the  first 
two  follows  so  surely  a  careful  reading  of 
the  respective  narratives  that  they  require 
no  further  consideration ;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  theory  of  a  common  source  has  found 
two  peculiar  developments  during  the  last 
decade.  One  scholar  endeavored  to  under- 
stand the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
as  variations  of  an  apocryphal,  still  extant, 
so-called  Protevangelium  of  James.  He 
rightly  has  been  left  alone  with  this  opinion. 
Even  the  reader  who  is  not  at  home  in  such 
inquiries  can,  by  reading  the  different  ac- 
counts in  succession  and  placing  them  side 
by  side,  convince  himself  of  the  dependence 
of  that  Protevangelium  of  James  on  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  for  which,  besides,  different 
chronological  reasons  speak.    But  the  other 


48  The  Virgin  Birth 

effort  also  to  restore  an  infancy-gospel  com- 
posed in  Hebrew,  said  to  have  originated 
very  early,  meets  with  insuperable  difficul- 
ties. It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  Matthew 
and  Luke  could  have  taken  from  this  gospel 
selections  which  can  only  with  the  greatest 
difficulty  be  made  into  one  picture.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  each  one  of  them,  could 
therefore  have  had  only  one  special  source 
for  their  fore-histories.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  assume  such  a  one  for  Matthew ;  not  even 
the  genealogy  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  having 
been  derived  by  him  from  another  author. 
It  exhibited  the  characteristic  tendency  of 
his  entire  Gospel  and  was  therefore  compiled 
by  him  alone.  All  the  more  is  this  the  case 
with  the  portions  of  the  fore-history;  for 
example,  with  their  framing  by  prophetical 
proof.  It  must  therefore  be  considered  as  an 
independent  and  original  literary  production 
of  Matthew. 

For  the  possibility  of  a  separate  source  for 
Luke,  besides  the  indication  of  his  preface, 
is  that  the  first  chapters  differ  as  to  contents 
and  style  from  the  preface  as  well  as  from 
the  remaining  part  of  the  Gospel,  whereas 
this  is  composed  in  good  Greek,  and  with  a 


The  Virgin  Birth  49 

certain  Gentile-Christian  tendency.  The 
style  of  the  fore-history  is  related  to  the 
Hebrew  and  reproduces  in  the  most  pertinent 
manner  not  only  Judaico^Christian  but 
Jewish  views;  the  latter  to  such  a  degree 
that  some  of  its  constituent  parts  have  been 
pointed  out  as  of  direct  Jewish  origin.  It 
were  indeed  conceivable  that  Luke  himself, 
for  the  time  being  purposely  confined  him- 
self in  language  and  view  to  the  sphere  of 
his  historical  narrative ;  but  a  number  of  ob^ 
servations  speak,  nevertheless,  for  the  sup- 
position that  Luke  incorporated  here  a  writ- 
ten narrative  of  Jesus's  infancy.  To  carry 
out  this  supposition  in  detail,  and  to  fix  the 
accuracy  of  the  original  source,  the  sober 
historian  will  deny  himself,  who  finds  it  not 
truthful  to  give  the  semblance  of  historical 
Idealities  to  his  scientific  hypotheses.  For 
the  main  question  which  Interests  us,  as  to 
the  historical  credibility  of  the  fore-history, 
or  prologue,  the  literary  critical  inquiry  is  in 
no  wise  yet  decided.  If  one  is  a  product  of 
Matthew,  and  that  of  Luke  is  derived  from 
an  Aramaic  source,  the  story  of  the  virgin 
birth  thus  being  told  for  the  first  time  about 
the  year  60,  nothing  is  thereby  decided  either 


50  The  Virgin  Birth 

for  or  against  its  legendary  character.  It 
needed  only  a  generation  after  the  death  of 
Christ  for  the  formation  of  such  a  legend 
concerning  his  birth  and  of  a  literary  de- 
posit, while,  on  the  other  hand,  trustworthy 
witnesses  as  well  could  communicate  and 
write  down  authentic  information  of  his 
origin.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  we 
find  the  roots  from  which  the  matter  of  our 
fore-histories  could  have  grown. 

The  supposition  that  we  might  have  to 
deal  with  intentionally  fraudulent  fictions 
or  with  fancies  purely,  emanating  from  the 
head  of  the  narrators,  is  too  decayed  and  an- 
tiquated to  be  considered.  It  were  inex- 
plicable how  two  men,  acting  independently, 
should  be  guilty  of  the  same  deception,  or 
encourage  the  same  freak.  For  an  eventual 
formation  of  legend  we  must  therefore  seek 
for  historical  points  of  support  which  can 
only  be  found  on  Jewish  or  heathenish  soil. 
They  have  been  found  in  both  with  great 
certainty.  To  be  sure,  as  faith  in  the  in- 
fallibility of  papal  utterances  receives  a  hard 
blow  when  two  "infallibles"  bluntly  contra- 
dict and  curse  each  other,  so  also  belief  in 
the  "certain  (  !)  results  of  science"  vanishes 


The  Virgin  Birth  51 

iwhen  one  sees  how  its  "master-spirits"  con- 
firm the  most  divided  opposites  by  their 
scientific  oaths.  Yes,  there  is  hardly  a  de- 
partment that,  equally  with  ours,  can  shake 
the  naivest  blind  faith  in  the  certainty  of 
scientific  results,  on  the  supposition,  to  be 
sure,  that  one  works  through  the  entire  ex- 
tremely comprehensive  literature,  even  to  its 
details,  and  who  extends  his  knowledge  be- 
yond his  own  party-lattice. 

Some  trace  with  the  most  powerful  accent 
of  conviction  the  legendary  foundation  of 
the  virgin  birth  back  to  Jewish  roots,  for 
Matthew  himself  in  a  careless  manner  has 
disclosed  to  us  how  he  came  to  suppose  a 
virgin  birth,  namely,  through  prophecy. 
The  prophetical  word  quoted  by  him  (Isa. 
7.  14)  has  produced  the  fulfillment;  in  it  we 
have  the  source  of  the  legend.  This  was 
formerly  the  opinion  of  Strauss  and  it  is 
still  that  of  Harnack.^  The  famous  philoso- 
pher, Usener,  on  the  other  hand,  asserts: 
"It  meant  to  turn  the  natural  events  upside 
down,  should  one  consider  the  prophetical 
word  as  the  cause  and  starting  point  of  the 
legend.      It   was,    rather,    the    seal    which 

1  See  Essence  of  Christianity.    Translated  by  Saunders. 


52  The  Virgin  Birth 

was  printed  upon  the  ready  matter."* 
Neither  the  primitive  form  of  the  prophetical 
word  nor  its  conception  in  Judaism  shows 
the  author  of  the  thought  of  a  virgin  birth. 
In  the  Hebrew  stands  a  word  which  by  no 
means  means  "virgin,"  but  simply  a  "mar- 
riageable young  woman";  in  only  one  in- 
stance, to  be  sure,  the  most  extended,  that  of 
the  Seventy  (note  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
Theodotion)  is  this  Hebrew  word  translated 
"virgin."  Notwithstanding  we  nowhere 
find  this  passage  Messianically  applied  in 
Judaism,  never  is  the  hope  expressed  that  the 
Messiah  is  to  be  born  of  a  virgin.  This  is 
the  more  significant  since  the  Messianic 
hopes  are  otherwise  developed  in  the  most 
detailed  manner  perhaps  with  reference  to 
the  Davidic  sonship  and  the  origin  of  the 
Messiah,  and  are  well  known  to  us.^    And 


JReligionsgeschichtliche  Untersuchungen,  i,  1889,  p.  75, 

2Comp.  Baldensperger,  die  Messianisch-Apokalyptischen 
Hofifnungen  des  Judentums,  1893,  and  already  Keim,  Ge- 
schichte  Jesu,  p,  355,  note  2.  In  the  book  of  Enoch  65.  5, 
where  the  origin  of  the  Messiah  is  spoken  of  from  the 
maternal  side,  he  is  called  once  only  "son  of  the  woman." 
This  clear  designation  as  son  of  the  virgin  in  the  Testament 
of  Joseph,  chapter  19,  belongs  to  the  undoubtedly  post- 
Christian  insertions  in  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs,  which,  though  composed  on  the  basis  of  Jewish 
copies,  received  their  final  wording,  connected  with  con- 
siderable retouches  and  interpolations,  only  in  Christian 
time. 


The  Virgin  Birth  53 

not  this  alone ;  rather  of  "the  thought  of  the 
generation  of  the  Messiah  by  God  in  the  vir- 
gin, or  of  a  passing  of  the  preexistent 
through  the  Virgin  Mary,  something  wholly 
foreign  to  Judaism,  not  the  least  indication 
is  here  found."  ^  For  Judaism  influenced  by 
Greek  thought,  as  by  Philo,  friends  of  the 
Jewish  exposition  on  the  passage  in  question 
could  therefore  adhere  only  to  the  purely 
allegorico-spiritualistic  designation  of  the 
ancestresses  of  Israel  as  virgins,  in  which 
Philo  beholds  the  incarnation  of  virtues. 
From  this  position  of  Judaism  those  circles 
also  among  the  later  Jewish  Christians  who 
remained  Jewish,  the  Ebonites,  who  were  the 
strictest,  could  not  accustom  themselves  to 
the  notion  of  a  virgin  birth,  but  rejected  it. 
In  the  second  century  after  Christ  the  Jews 
were  still  opposing  the  Messianic  interpreta- 
tion of  Isa.  7,2  and  asserted  that  the  Chris- 
tians mistranslated  the  passage.  Matthew 
is  therefore  the  first,  and  for  a  long  time  the 
only,  author  who  understands  Isa.  7  as  a 
prophecy  of  the  virgin  birth.     This  under- 


ilUmann  in  Jahrbucher  fiir  Protestantische  Theologie, 
1891,  p.  243. 

^Justin,  Dialogue  against  Trypho,  71. 


54  The  Virgin  Birth 

standing  came  to  him  only  fromi  his  other- 
wise established  faith  in  the  virgin  birth. 
Fulfillment  only  learned  to  find  and  under- 
stand prophecy — an  observation  whose 
truth  may  be  observed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  most  frequently  in  Matthew. 
This  fact  has  induced  a  number  of  very 
learned  and  especially  conscientious  scholars 
to  give  up  this  interpretation  from  Judaism 
and  has  taught  them  to  adopt  another  one 
essentially  more  unimpressive.  In  a  certain 
smaller  and  secluded  circle  of  Judaism, 
called  the  Ebonite,  also  Essenic — in  the  time 
of  Jesus  and  before  him — a  certain  predilec- 
tion for  ascetico-monkish  ideals,  and,  there- 
fore, also  a  certain  opposition  to  marriage, 
had  become  predominant.  Out  of  these  dis- 
positions the  idea  of  a  virgin  birth  is  said  to 
have  developed  itself.  It  is  true  that  there  is 
a  long  step  between  a  dislike  to  marriage  and 
sympathy  with  the  virgin  birth;  but,  aside 
from  this,  not  a  trace  of  dislike  for  such  mar- 
riage is  to  be  seen  in  the  Gospel  fore-history. 
The  words  "to  beget"  occur  nowhere  else  so 
often  as  in  this  prologue.  Think  only  of  the 
genealogies.  Mary's  and  Joseph's  inter- 
course is  only  rejected  till  the  birth  of  the 


The  Virgin  Birth  55 

child  Jesus;  the  relations  of  Zacharlas  and 
Elizabeth  show  no  trace  whatever  of  Ebonit- 
ism.  In  short,  the  explanation  of  the  story 
of  the  virgin  birth  as  a  legend  springing 
from  Jewish  roots  has  not  the  least  historical 
support  at  the  present  stage  of  scientific 
inquiry. 

The  more  the  knowledge  of  this  fact  ad- 
vanced the  more  energetically  the  effort  has 
been  renewed  to  discover  in  heathenism  the 
sufficient  motives  for  the  idea  of  the  virgin 
birth.  To  be  sure,  the  question  is  here  only 
of  the  repetition  of  observations  which  were 
made  in  the  second  century  by  the  heathen 
on  the  one  hand  and  ecclesiastical  writers  on 
the  other,  and  which  were  again  resumed  in 
the  eighteenth  and  almost  completely  in  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  One 
can  distinguish  among  those  notions  which 
were  taken  from  Oriental  and  those  from 
Occidental  heathenism.  Of  the  former  we 
first  consider  Buddhism.''  Since  one  part  of 
this  series,  treating  of  the  relation  of  Bud- 
dhism to  Christianity,  and  containing  all  the 
necessary  material,  has  already  been  pub- 


iThe  analogies  found  in  the  Mahabharata  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  virgin  birth. 


56  The  Virgin  Birth 

lished/  we  can  be  brief.  In  a  worlc  composed 
many  centuries  after  Buddha's  death,  treat- 
ing of  the  beginnings  of  his  life  up  to  the 
preaching  in  Benares,  Lalita-Vistara,  we 
read  also  of  the  miraculous  circumstances  of 
the  birth  of  Buddha.  He  appears  as  the  son 
of  a  married  queen — not  of  a  virgin — who 
conceived  him  not  through  intercourse  with 
her  husband  but  through  the  entering  "of  a 
small  white  elephant  into  her  side,"  or  ac- 
cording to  another  tradition,  through  that  of 
a  ray  of  light.  The  affinity  of  this  notion 
and  that  of  the  New  Testament  confines  it- 
self to  the  separation  of  the  human  father 
in  the  origin  of  Christ  and  that  of  Buddha. 
When  the  question  is  asked  as  to  a  common 
historical  dependence  of  the  mutual  notions 
nothing  can  be  decided  thereon.  For  in- 
fluence on  the  Judaico-Christian  circles  in 
the  first  and  second  third  of  the  first  post- 
Christian  century  not  the  shadow  of  a  proof 
is  offered.  He  who  asserts  it  either  knows 
not  the  circumstances  or  falsifies  them. 
Besides,  in  our  case  it  were  not  so  easy  to 
explain  how  a  married  queen  became  a  be- 


iSee   New  Testament  Parallels   in    Buddhistic  Litera- 
ture in  this  series. 


The  Virgin  Birth  57 

trothed  virgin  and  a  small  elephant  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  fact — to  be  explained 
later  on — only  remains  that  also  in  another 
religion,  in  the  course  of  its  history,  the 
thought  has  been  conceived  that  its  founder 
originated  miraculously. 

According  to  Gunkel^  Saoshyant,  corre- 
sponding in  Parseeism  to  the  future  Christ 
who  is  to  appear  at  the  end  of  the  world,  is 
"bom  of  a  virgin  in  a  supernatural  man- 
ner." In  tracing  the  sources  we  find,  indeed, 
something  entirely  different,  an  offensive 
narrative.^ 

From  the  cornucopia  of  the  Babylonian 
religion,  which  in  other  directions  has  of 
late  distributed  so  many  gifts,  our  depart- 
ment has  been  presented  with  only  one. 
King  Sargon  narrates  of  himself :  "Sargon, 
the  mighty  king  of  Agade,  am  I.  My  mother 
was  a  Vestal  (  ?),  my  father  of  low  descent. 
.  .  .  My  Vestal-mother  (?)  conceived 
me,  in  secret  she  begat  me."^    In  this  pas- 

iZum  religionsgeschichtlichen  Verstandnis  des  Neuen 
Testaments,  p.  65. 

zWindischmann:  Mittra  abhandlungen  fur  die  Kunde 
des  Morgenlandes,  vol.  I,  No.  i  (1857),  p,  80. 

3 Jeremias :  das  altes  Testament  in  Lizt  des  Alten  Orients, 
1904,  p.  255. 


58  The  Virgin  Birth 

sage  the  word,  "enitu"  translated  "Vestal," 
immaculate  temple  virgin,  is  linguistically 
not  yet  satisfactorily  explained.*  Its  objec- 
tive application  in  some  passages  of  the 
newly  discovered  Hammurabi  code  seems  to 
speak  for  its  meaning  as  "Vestal."^  It  is, 
however,  entirely  unimportant  for  the  con- 
ception of  our  narrative,  and  for  its  under- 
standing we  will  even  suppose  that  King 
Sargon  in  the  first  instance  calls  his  mother 
a  temple  virgin.  But  he  also  expressly 
states  that  he  has  a  father  and  that  his 
mother  conceived  him.  Sargon,  accordingly, 
does  not  call  himself  a  son  of  a  virgin,  but  at 
the  most  the  son  of  a  woman  who  was  a 
temple  virgin  but  afterward  a  wife.  We 
have  here  a  parallel  to  the  birth  of  Romulus 
and  Remus,  who  also  descended  from  a  ves- 
tal who  is  said  to  have  had  unlawful  inter- 
course with  the  war  god  Mars.  Only  those 
readers  can  combine  it  with  the  narrative  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  who  finished  their  read- 
ing at  the  first  time  of  the  Sargon  discourse 

iSee  Delitzsch,  Assyrisches  Handworterbuch,  1896; 
Grossmann:  Der  Ursprung  der  Israelitsch-Judischen 
Eschatologie,  1905,  p.  271,  who  renders  the  above  trans- 
lation only  with  a  point  of  interrogation. 

2Comp.  Winckler:  Die  Gesetze  Hammurabis,  1904.  p. 
30,  note  I. 


The  Virgin  Birth  59 

and  did  not  continue  reading.  Babylon  also 
only  offers  us  the  help^  that  the  origin  of 
prominent  personalities  was  somehow  con- 
ceived as  unique;  thus,  for  example,  the 
kings — ^may  be  this  was  even  "court  style'' — 
were  readily  made  the  sons  of  the  mother  of 
a  god,  whicli  was  thought  of  as  everything 
else  but  original. 

And  this  very  same  thought  we  also  find 
in  the  Grseco-Roman  culture  circle.  Not 
only  religious  figures,  but  prominent  men  of 
history  in  general  are  conceived  of  as  having 
originated  in  an  especially  wonderful  man- 
ner. Usener^  mentions  a  whole  series  of 
sons  of  gods ;  Pythagoras  was  considered  a 
son  of  Apollo;  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  a  son 
of  Zeus ;  in  like  manner  it  is  said  that  Plato's 
mother  had  not  her  son  by  her  husband,  but 
by  Apollo.  The  like  opinion  was  entertained 
of  Alexander,  whose  mother  is  said  to  have 

^Babylonian  Astrology  helps  no  further.  For  neither  is 
the  connection  of  the  heavenly  goddess  with  the  zodiaic 
image  of  the  virgin  established,  still  less  the  transference 
of  that  notion  of  the  heavenly  goddess  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment Mary,  and  least  of  all  that  Jesus  Christ  is  bom  at  the 
rising  of  the  sign  of  the  virgin.  Jeremias,  who  inclines 
toward  these  directions,  quotes  as  a  proof  citations  from 
Albertus  Magnus  and  Roger  Bacon,  who  lived  more  than 
a  thousand  years  after,  not  before,  Christ!  (Babylonisches 
im  Neuen  Testament,  1905,  p.  48). 

^Religionsgeschichtliche  Untersuchungen,  i,  p.  70,  seq. 


6o  The  Virgin  Birth 

been  visited  by  a  god  in  the  shape  of  a  ser- 
pent; it  is  especially  significant  that  the 
emperor  Augustus  was  also  made  the  son  of 
Apollo. 

On  the  basis  of  these  and  many  other 
proofs  Usener  is  well  entitled  to  the  asser- 
tion "that  the  belief  in  the  love  of  gods  for 
the  daughters  of  men,  and  personal  relation 
with  them,  was  generally  diffused  in  an- 
tiquity."^ With  these  examjples  Usener  con- 
nects also  two  others  according  to  which 
certain  men  are  said  to  have  been  born  of  a 
virgin.  One  refers  to  Simon  the  Magician, 
in  the  Clementine  Recognitions,  ii.  c.  14; 
the  other  to  a  certain  Terebinthos,  men- 
tioned in  the  Acta  Archelai  et  Manctis, 
c.  52.2  This  juxtaposition  is  in  so  far 
very  characteristic — Usener  himself  has 
unfortunately  forgotten  to  call  attention 
to  it — since  the  notices  of  virgin  sons 
belong  to  circles  which  were  iniiuenced 
by  Christianity  and  to  post-Christian 
writings.  The  Clementine  Recognitions, 
like  the  Acta  Archelai,  were  under  the 
influence   of   the   primitive   Christian  gos- 

^Suetonius,  Book  xxxiv. 
'Ibid.,  p.  74. 


The  Virgin  Birth  6i 

pel  literature  and  also  of  the  prologues  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  They  are  therefore 
not  their  roots  but  their  excrescences. 

Although  Graeco-Roman  heathenism  in- 
forms us  only  of  carnally  procreated  sons  of 
gods,  Usener  asserts,  nevertheless,  "The 
notion  that  our  Saviour  was  the  Son  of  God, 
born  of  a  pure  virgin,  was  the  unintentional 
(!),  yea,  physically  necessary  reflection  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ  in  the  souls  of  con- 
verted Greeks."^  In  reality,  the  notion  only 
existed  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world  that 
prominent  men,  closely  connected  with  the 
deity,  were  begotten  by  it  in  a  natural  man- 
ner, and  serious  discussion  must  accord- 
ingly ask  the  question  whether  this  view 


1  Suetonius,  Book  xxxiv,  p.  75.  Jeremias  (Babylon- 
ischesim  Neuen  Testament,  1905,  p.  47)  asserts :  "Demeter, 
the  mother  of  Dionysius,  is  called  in  the  Eleusinian  mysteries 
.  .  ,  holy  virgin,"  unfortunately,  however,  without  any  in- 
dication of  the  place,  which  would  enable  a  control.  The 
most  comprehensive  and  newest  article  on  Demeter,  by 
Kem,  in  Pauly-Wissowa  (Real- Encyclopaedic  der  classischen 
alterhumswissenschafe,  Tr.)  knows  nothing  thereof. 
The  title  of  a  virgin  is  opposed  in  a  most  decided  manner 
to  the  very  nature  of  Demeter  as  the  goddess  of  mothers 
and  midwives.  Still  less  is  anything  said  of  a  virgin  birth 
of  Dionysius.  It  may  be,  as  has  been  supposed  by  most 
competent  authority,  that  in  the  expression  mentioned 
above  we  have  the  record  of  a  Christian  church  father,  who 
carried  his  world  of  perception  into  that  of  the  mysteries — 
for  which  we  have  repeated  examples.  That  the  .  .  . 
the  virgin  of  the  world,  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  ques- 
tion, see  Archiv  fur  Religionsgeschichte,  vol.  8  (1906), 
p.  356,  seq. 


'62  The  Virgin  Birth 

can  have  historically  suggested  the  notion  of 
the  virgin  birth. 

Exactly  as  with  reference  to  Buddhism 
and  tlie  other  Oriental  religions,  so  it  is  here. 
Not  the  least  proof  has  been  given  by  what 
agencies,  by  aid  of  what  bridges,  heathenish 
mythology  could  have  come  into  the  se- 
cluded Jewish-Christian  circles.  That  it 
existed  not  among  the  Jews  has  been  shown 
above,  from  which  the  prologues  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  originate.  The  effort  to  de- 
rive essential  moments  of  the  Lukanic  pro- 
logue^— not,  however,  the  virgin  birth — from 
inscriptions  by  municipal  authorities  of 
cities  like  Priene  and  Halicarnassus  in  honor 
of  Augustus,^  besides  causing  hilarity,  has 
already  found  a  sufficiently  crushing  rebuff.^ 
But  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  a  man 
like  Luke,  in  his  travels  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire, became  acquainted  with  the  Graeco- 
Roman  belief  in  the  sons  of  the  gods.  The 
decision  can  only  depend  upon  the  considera- 
tion whether  the  inner  relationship  of  the 
mutual  ideas  is  large  enough  to  explain  the 


iSoltau,  Die  Geburtsgeschichte  Jesu  Christ. 

2  See  Nosgen,  Zur  Geburtsgeschichte  Christi,  in  Studier- 
stube,  1902,  p.  168. 


The  Virgin  Birth  63 

origin  of  the  one  from  the  other.  To  be 
sure,  to  discover  at  all  a  relationship  between 
the  history  of  the  birth  of  Augustus  and  that 
of  Jesus  Christ  requires,  on  the  whole,  a  rich 
"religious-historical  erudition,"  whicli  the 
simple,  unperverted  reader  hardly  has  at  his 
command.  He  will — and  rightly  so — dis- 
cover little  more  than  abysmal  differences. 
In  heathenism  he  sees  a  drawing  down  of 
the  deity  into  the  rudest  sensuality,  its  trans- 
formation into  animals — ^particularly  into  a 
serpent,  or  as  in  Buddhism  an  elephant.  The 
whole  supernaturalness  consists  simply  in 
this,  that  a  so-called  god  performs  a  physical 
act  in  place  of  a  man.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  least  trace  of  sentient  ideas  is  wanting. 
God  takes  not  the  part  of  man,  but  that  of 
the  Creator.  The  very  application  of  the 
spirit-idea  in  the  manner  in  which  it  occurs 
in  the  birth  stories,  and  as  it  is  analogous  to 
the  Old  Testament,  renders  wholly  impos- 
sible the  thought  of  the  Deity  as  sensual 
progenitor  of  the  child  Jesus.  The  Hebrew 
word  for  spirit,  "ruach,"  is  feminine,  and  if 
Jesus  should  be  thought  of  as  standing  in 
some  natural  relation  to  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit 
could  only  appear  as  his  mother.    And  this, 


64  The  Virgin  Birth 

too,  is  not  an  empty  supposition,  but  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  many  learned  fancies, 
is  to  be  supported  by  the  declaration  of  an 
old  source.  In  the  so-called  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  an  apocryphal  writing 
related  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  child 
Jesus  calls  the  Holy  Ghost  his  "mother."^ 
Since  the  child  Jesus,  according  to  the  pro- 
logues, is  not  regarded  as  the  sensually 
begotten  son  of  God,  yea,  since  his  concep- 
tion in  the  circles  of  the  two  Gospels  would 
have  been  conceived  as  the  greatest  degra- 
dation of  God,  and  is  precluded  by  their  con- 
ception of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  biblical  and 
heathenish  narratives  have  not  so  much 
relationship  with  one  another  as  the  Bud- 
dhistic elephant  and  the  Grseco-Roman  ser- 
pent. Common  to  both  sides  only  is  the 
opinion  that  a  great,  wondrous  man,  es- 
pecially in  the  realm  of  religion,  must  also 
have  a  wondrous  origin.  The  more  fre- 
quently, however,  a  thought  springs  up 
independently,  the  greater  the  possibility 
that  it  expresses  something  necessary  and 
real.    As  often  as  the  hope  of  a  new  German 


iPor  the  passage  see  Pick,  The  Extra  Canonical   Life 


*±<or  tne  passage  see  Ficic,   ine  J 
of  Christ,  New  York,  1903,  p.  270. 


The  Virgin  Birth  65 

emperor  and  a  new  German  empire  was 
active,  it  was  not  fancy,  but  anticipation  of 
something  which  had  to  come  and  which 
was  come.  While  in  many  phenomena  the 
looked-for  emperor  of  the  future  did  not  at 
once  appear,  signs  were  erroneously  inter- 
preted, and  eventually  one  came  who  was 
ruler  in  reality.  When,  therefore,  in  the  his- 
tory of  religion  and  intellect  the  assertion  of 
the  miraculous  origin  of  the  great  men  was 
made  again  and  again,  it  is  by  no  means  to 
be  deduced  from  this  fact  in  itself  that  we 
have  to  deal  with  something  unreal  in  every 
case.  Rather  is  the  supposition  just  as  valid 
that  it  is  frequently  realized. 

More,  indeed,  than  the  concession  of  such 
a  possibility  cannot  be  obtained  from  the 
stand  of  the  pure  historian.  For  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  its  realization,  and  that, 
indeed,  in  Jesus  Christ  and  not  in  Buddha, 
Plato,  or  Augustus,  presupposes  a  certain 
religious  attitude  which  can  only  be  men- 
tioned and  established  in  our  second  part. 

For  the  present  we  have  still  the  task  to  in- 
dicate briefly  a  more  suitable  origin  of  the 
New  Testament  sources  on  the  virgin  birth 
than  we  have  thus  far  known.     After  all 


66  The  Virgin  Birth 

other  suppositions  have  failed  for  its  eluci- 
dation it  is  scientifically  admissible,  and,  in- 
deed, imperative,  to  assume  for  once  the 
reality  of  the  virgin  birth,  and  from  this 
point  study  the  New  Testament  record.  The 
mystery  of  the  virgin  birth  was  revealed 
only  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  the  aged 
priestly  couple,  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth, 
were  probably  also  taken  into  confidence. 
The  very  nature  of  this  miracle  necessitated 
silence.  The  consequences  of  its  communi- 
cation would  have  caused,  and  afterward 
did  cause,  indeed,  the  Jewish  blasphemies  of 
Mary,  who  is  said  to  have  had  illicit  inter- 
course with  a  Roman  soldier,  Panthera; 
an  imputation  as  empty  as  malicious,  yet 
which  has  the  semblance  of  credibility  for 
Haeckel.^  Elizabeth  and  Zacharias  prob- 
ably died  soon,  and  Joseph  also,  and  with 
them  the  secret  was  buried.  For  Mary  the 
thought  of  the  miracle  receded,  since  during 
sixty  years — aside  from  the  behavior  of  the 
'Boy  in  the  temple,  which  she  did  not  fully 
understand — she  saw  nothing  wonderful  in 
him.  Neither  did  the  work  of  Jesus  answer 
to  the  picture  which  she  made  to  herself  of 

^See  Loof,  Anti-Haeckel. 


The  Virgin  Birth  67 

the  deeds  of  this  Son  of  her  virginity.  She 
rather  took  as  much  offense  at  his  appear- 
ance as  others ;  nor  did  Jesus  encourage  her, 
when  she  alhided  to  his  wondrous  character 
at  tlie  marriage  feast  in  Cana,  to  communi- 
cate more  particulars  about  him.  Thus 
Mary  kept  silent  also  during  the  public  min- 
istry of  Jesus,  during  which  the  people  gen- 
erally, and  even  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  knew 
of  nothing  extraordinary.  When  and  where 
Jesus  heard  of  his  virgin  birth  we  know  not. 
That  he  made  it  not  a  part  of  his  Messianic 
preaching  everyone  perceives  who  has  even 
a  slight  knowledge  of  its  principles.  Jesus 
never  came  before  men  as  the  one  he  really 
was,  but  in  personal  intercourse  under  the 
influence  of  his  preaching  he  led  them  grad- 
ually to  the  knowledge  and  confession  of  the 
truth  of  his  nature.  Jesus  also  never  ex- 
pected to  produce  faith  in  himself  by  his 
miracles,  still  less  by  communicating  a 
miracle  once  wrought  on  him.  And,  if  it 
shall  be  shown  farther  on  that  the  belief  in 
his  preaching,  in  his  deity,  and  his  slnless- 
ness  presupposed  belief  in  his  virgin  birth, 
it  could  not  be  proclaimed  on  a  basis  of  de- 
velopment of  revelation,  when  even  those 


68  The  Virgin  Birth 

presuppositions  were  only  nascent.  Jesus 
died.  Under  his  cross.  Mary  stood  also. 
Jesus  was  raised.  Now  the  multitude  per- 
ceived in  the  living  as  in  the  historical 
Christ  its  Lord  and  God,  to  whom  it  prayed ; 
the  sinless  One  who  redeemed  it.  The  days 
of  which  Jesus  himself  had  spoken  now  com- 
menced, in  which  the  Spirit  reminded  his 
own  of  all  which  stood  in  connection  with 
him.  To  the  first  Jerusalem  congregation 
Mary  also  belonged,  and  the  position  which 
she  there  occupied  seems  to  have  been  a 
prominent  one  (Acts  i.  14).  In  a  different 
sense  from  before  she  had  now  become  "the 
handmaid  of  the  Lord"  (Luke  i.  38),  be- 
cause she  submitted  to  the  Lord  Christ  and 
in  full  religious  faith  became  subject  to  him 
as  to  her  God.  With  sanctified  pride  she 
remembered  the  relation  she  bore  to  the 
Christ ;  the  aging  woman  feared  no  more  the 
reproach  of  men,  and  the  Spirit  disclosed  to 
her  the  deepest  and  true  understanding  of 
her  experiences.  Thus  more  than  once  she 
told  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus.  In  the  virgin 
birth  her  discourses  had  the  firm  center. 
These  narratives  went  from  mouth  to  mouth. 
Almost  a  generation  later  Matthew  fixed 


The  Virgin  Birth  69 

them  in  a  form  which  harmonized  with  the 
setting  and  the  whole  aim  of  his  Gospel. 
Before  or  at  the  same  time,  another  Jewish- 
Christian  believer,  who  especially  felt  at 
home  in  the  birth-narrative,  fixed  the  stories 
of  Mary  in  a  free  form  in  the  Aramaic  lan- 
guage. This  "flying  leaf" — science  likes  to 
speak  of  such — among  other  things  came 
also  into  the  hand  of  Luke,  who  was  eagerly 
looking  around  for  sundry  sources.  He  took 
it  in  hand  and  revised  it  and  made  it  the  in- 
troduction to  his  Gospel.  And  in  all  this  the 
Spirit  of  God  ruled,  taking  the  human  into 
the  service  for  the  attainment  of  his  pur- 
poses and  objects.  As  the  entire  historical 
life  of  Jesus  became  by  no  means  the  object 
of  the  apostolic-missionary  preaching — we 
never  read,  for  example,  that  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  or  the  parable  of  the  prodigal 
son  formed  its  contents,  but  mainly  his  cross 
and  his  resurrection — thus,  also,  not  his 
virgin  birth.  In  this  manner  we  perfectly 
understand  that  we  find  at  most  only  vague 
allusions  to  the  virgin  birth  by  Paul  and  in 
the  other  missionary-sermonic  literature  of 
the  New  Testament.  But  when,  at  the  turn 
of  the  first  to  the  second  century,  it  was  de- 


70  The  Virgin  Birth 

termined  to  put  together  as  a  confession, 
those  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  had 
become  of  religious  importance  for  the  con- 
gregation, the  virgin  birth  had  been  al- 
ready received  into  the  ancient  apostolism. 
The  certainty  of  its  historicity  and  religious 
importance,  of  its  harmony  and  connection 
with  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  had  been 
felt.  This  attempt  to  explain  the  New  Tes- 
tament statements  of  the  virgin  birth  is,  the 
propounded  form,  a  suggestion,  and  pre- 
tends to  be  no  more  than  such.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  it  claims  to  explain  and  com- 
bine somewhat  more  pertinently  and  more 
connectedly  the  well-established  historical 
individual  cognitions  than  the  rejected 
known  to  be  unhistorical.  From  the  stand- 
point of  the  impartial  historian  it  is  conse- 
quently proven  that  the  New  Testament  ac- 
count of  the  virgin  birth  has  historical 
reality  as  its  basis. 

II.  Only  the  view  of  life,  the  faith  of  the 
individual  man,  can  change  this  historical 
possibility  of  the  virgin  birth  into  a  reality 
or  unreality.  Whoever  acknowledges  no 
God,  or  he  who  fails  to  make  his  nature 
coincide  with  that  of  the  world  or  its  inner- 


The  Virgin  Birth  71 

most  kernel,  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  on 
this  basis  refuse  to  assent  to  the  virgin  birth. 
Or,  whoever  beHeves  his  God  capable  of 
"spiritual"  but  not  of  "natural"  miracles, 
and  besides  sees  in  the  miraculous  birth  no 
meaning  and  value  for  the  reception  of  sal- 
vation in  the  person  of  Christ,  necessarily 
fails  in  the  appreciation  of  the  historical  nar- 
rative. He  must  either  be  content  with  this 
lack  of  discernment  or,  with  new  courage 
search  for  stronger  "natural"  explanations 
and  deductions.  On  the  other  hand,  belief 
in  God,  and  in  him  as  the  Lord  who,  for  the 
sake  of  man's  salvation,  wonderfully  mas- 
ters the  ways  of  history  as  well  as  of  nature, 
together  with  the  inner  religious  conviction 
that  the  virgin  birth  is  necessary  to  the  full 
understanding  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as  Re- 
deemer— this  belief  allows  firm  and  sincere 
adoption  of  the  virgin  birth  as  a  fact  in 
salvation. 

The  right  of  belief  in  God,  and  of  the 
conviction  of  the  necessity  of  the  miracle  on 
account  of  sin  and  redemption,  and  its  ad- 
justment to  the  lawful  order  of  creation,  can 
neither  be  explained  nor  proven  in  this  place. 
Only   two   things    are   possible    to   prove, 


y2  The  Virgin  Birth 

namely,  how  unfounded  is  the  difference  be- 
tween natural  and  spiritual  miracles,  and 
what  deep  religious  roots  the  affirmation  of 
the  virgin  birth  has.  That  keen  separation 
of  nature  and  spirit,  body  and  soul,  is  the 
inheritance  of  a  certain  older  one-sided 
conception  of  the  world.  The  German 
idealistic  philosophy  had  placed  a  wide 
chasm  between  natural  and  spiritual  hap- 
penings; yea,  it  presented  the  latter  as  al- 
most belonging  to  another  world  (so  Kant). 
To  it  alone  freedom  and  morality  and — so 
far  as  it  was  considered  necessary — religion 
also  were  to  belong.  But  when,  with  the 
advancement  of  the  natural  sciences,  the  es- 
sence of  nature  and  its  worth  were  better 
understood,  the  materialistic  world-concep- 
tion arose  again,  which  on  its  part  depre- 
ciated with  the  spiritual  life  all  domains  like 
morality  and  religion.  In  the  emergency 
produced  thereby,  a  number  of  theologians 
went  back  again  to  the  old  idealism,  above 
all  things  to  Kant.  They  again  bluntly 
separated  the  natural  and  the  spiritual  life 
from  each  other,  and  assured  to  religion  and 
also  to  God,  but  only  in  the  realm  of  the 
spiritual,  a  modest  place.     In  the  spiritual 


The  Virgin  Birth  73 

and  especially  in  the  moral  life  he  was  al- 
lowed to  perform  a  miracle.  This  whole 
world-picture  is,  however,  outstripped  in  all 
departments  by  modern  science.  Psychology, 
sociology,  history,  especially  also  that  of  re- 
ligion, show  in  like  manner  how  nature,  as 
the  material  and  lawful,  reaches  into  all 
provinces  of  the  spiritual  life  and  jointly 
rules  their  happenings.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  belief  becomes  ever  stronger  that  tran- 
scendental factors  control  the  most  elemen- 
tary events  of  nature-happenings.  If,  there- 
fore, the  coincidence  of  nature  and  spirit- 
happening  is  indissoluble,  the  interworking 
of  both  has  this  effect  for  the  modern  man  in 
his  present  world-picture,  that  he  cannot 
debar  from  one  of  these  domains  his  religion, 
his  God.  At  present,  therefore,  for  anyone 
who  takes  part  in  the  scientific  advances  of 
our  time,  only  the  denial  of  every  miracle 
or  acceptance  of  nature  and  spirit-miracles 
is  possible,  since  this  distinction,  in  the  sense 
of  a  contrariety  excluding  itself,  is  obsolete. 
If  I  am  sincerely  of  the  opinion  that  in  the 
spiritual  realm:  God  is  able  to  call  forth  plain- 
ly new  things  which  are  not  themselves  de- 
rived from  the  forces  of  the  inner  worldly 


74  The  Virgin  Birth 

existence,  and  if  the  term  "miracle"  is  not 
merely  an  idle  phrase,  I  must  extend  this 
view  also  to  nature,  which  is  completely 
filled  with  the  Spirit.  Consequently,  the  con- 
nection with  modern  science  allows  us  to 
assume  a  prodigy  quite  as  well  as  a  spiritual 
wonder  when — this  is  here  again  the  inevi- 
table supposition — there  is  cause  for  it  in 
religion. 

Our  last  statements  concern  the  discovery 
of  the  religious  reasons  which  speak  for  a 
belief  in  the  virgin  birth.  The  Christian  be- 
lief is  founded  on  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  its  Lord  and  Redeemer.  In  that  is  con- 
tained the  acknowledgment  of  his  deity  and 
sinlessness.^  He  who  arrives  not  at  both 
shows  that  he  has  not  realized  the  religious 
experiences  which,  according  to  the  history 
of  primitive  Qiristianity,  specifically  belong 
to  it.  He  may,  nevertheless,  have  religion ; 
perhaps  a  better,  higher,  and  more  purified, 
but  certainly  not  the  Christian.  Only  those 
who  experience  Christ  as  the  divine  Lord 
and  sinless  Saviour  are  Christians,  and  have 
a  right  to  speak  when  it  concerns  the  re- 


iPor    the    connection    of    both,    see  Seeberg:  Warum 
glauben  wir  an  Christus,  2d  cd. 


The  Virgin  Birth  75 

ligious  worth  of  a  certain  fact  of  the  Chris- 
tian reHgion.  Competence  in  our  depart- 
ment is  also  the  supposition  of  judgment. 
Christ's  divinity  and  sinlessness  fill  the 
whole  being  and  full  life  of  faith.  Divinity 
or  holiness  adheres  not  merely  to  his  words 
and  thoughts,  to  his  will  and  actions,  but 
whatever  appears  or  stands  behind  as  the 
contents  of  his  life  and  its  expression,  has 
part  in  both.^  As  little  is  a  time  in  the  life 
of  Jesus  consistent  with  the  religious  expe- 
rience in  which  he  was  not  yet  God,  or  only 
a  nascent  saint,  both  rather  existed  in  all 
phases  of  development  in  the  forms  answer- 
ing the  same.  As  sex  and  race,  temperament 
and  genius,  never  belong  to  only  one  part  of 
the  human  personality,  and  come  to  it  only 
during  the  duration  of  its  later  life,  but  are 
devised  from  the  beginning  in  an  all-com- 
prehending sway,  thus  it  is  also  with 
Christ's  divinity  and  holiness.  If  both  be- 
long to  him  at  all,  they  belong  to  him  from 
the  beginning,  from  his  birth.  The  Christ 
of  faith  is  from  his  birth  divine  and  holy. 
Natural  birth  never  produces  anything  holy 

_  ^These  few  suggestions  must  suffice  since  neither  a  total 
view  of  the  person  of  Christ  nor  even  of  his  deity  can 
here  be  developed. 


yd  The  Virgin  Birth 

and  divine,  but  human  and  sinful;  conse- 
quently Jesus's  origin  must  have  been 
miraculous.  This  wonderfulness  consists  in 
this :  in  place  of  a  child  in  whom  a  sinful 
man  originates,  a  Child  is  created  who  be- 
comes a  holy  and  divine  Redeemer.  In  the 
religious  experience  of  the  individual  Chris- 
tian, which  he  realizes  in  his  Christ-God, 
this  is  immediately  concluded.  If  the  Chris- 
tian were  thrown  upon  his  imagination,  he 
could  fancy  different  forms  in  which  God 
had  brought  about  this  miracle.  Even  one's 
own  child,  of  a  human  father  and  a  human 
mother,  could  have  been  formed  divine  and 
sinless  by  God.  This  would  have  been  a  par- 
ticularly great  and  incomprehensible  miracle. 
Reverence  prohibits  the  Christian  to  assert, 
even  subsequently,  with  reference  to  any 
fact,  that  God  had  to  consummate  it  exactly 
so;  he  never  puts  himself  as  counselor  and 
judge  above  his  God.  Thus  he  does  not  as- 
sert that  God  could  only  have  sent  the  holy 
and  divine  Redeemer  by  birth  from  a  virgin, 
for  the  form  of  a  virgin  birth  has  not  in  it- 
self sinlessness  and  holiness  as  necessary 
consequence.  If  the  natural  sexual  pro- 
creation   according    to    biblico-evangelical 


The  Virgin  Birth  "J"] 

ideas  is  not  sinful,  and  if  the  sexual  act  itself 
by  no  means  procreates  the  sin,  sinlessness  is 
not  given  with  its  omission.  Rather  is  sin 
transferred  by  the  association  of  the  sexes, 
and  had  Mary  also  part  in  it  as  a  parturient 
virgin,  the  child  would  have  also  become 
sinful  without  any  specifically  purifying 
operation  on  the  part  of  God.  Son  of  the 
virgin  and  Son  of  God  do  also  not  coin- 
cide necessarily.  The  virgin  could  have 
borne  a  singularly  wondrous  man,  such  for 
example,  as  the  Koran  thinks  Jesus  to  have 
been — which  makes  him  the  son  of  the  vir- 
gin but  not  of  God.  The  Christian  who 
does  not  dictate  to  his  God  and  put  God  un- 
der the  compulsion  of  his  human  logic  and 
dogmatics,  finds  in  the  revealed  history  the 
knowledge  of  forms  in  which  God  has 
actually  accomplished  his  miracles.  If  the 
Christian  who,  in  his  experience  of  his  faith 
is  certain  of  the  miraculous  origin  of  his 
divine  Saviour,  obtains  from  history  the 
authentic  proof  that  it  was  consummated  in 
the  form  of  the  virgin  birth,  he  thankfully 
accepts  it,  and  surrounds  it  with  his  religious 
certainty.  He  rejoices  that  history  con- 
firms this  and  makes  more  real  to  him  that 


78  The  Virgin  Birth 

to  which  his  inner  life  responds.  He  pos- 
sesses the  inner  reasoning.  We  continually 
experience  the  saving  power  of  the  death  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  see  in  history  its  peculiar 
form — that  of  the  crucifixion ;  but  the  fuller 
form  of  his  resurrection  story  makes  known 
to  us  that  he  is  with  us  as  the  living  One. 
Tlius  our  religious  certainty  of  the  miracu- 
lous birth  of  Jesus  receives  its  historical 
form  through  the  prologues  of  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

In  our  personal  knowledge  of  Christ  lies 
also  the  last  reason  for  our  belief  that  only 
in  him,  and  not  in  other  great  men,  the  prev- 
alent thought  that  they  should  originate  in  a 
miraculous  manner,  has  been  realized. 
Buddha  and  Plato,  Alexander  and  Augustus, 
have  not  so  inwardly  influenced  us  that  we 
say  to  them :  "Ye  are  the  sons  and  the  saints 
of  God" ;  and  for  this  reason  we  also  do  not 
believe  that  their  birth  was  accomplished  by 
a  wonderful  creative  act  of  God.  In  Christ, 
however,  we  can  see  the  Son  of  the  virgin, 
because  he  becomes  to  us  God  and  Lord. 
Jesus's  divinity  and  sinlessness  are  so  closely 
woven  together  with  the  virgin  birth,  as  con- 
cerning our  religious  life  and  also  that  of  the 


The  Virgin  Birth  79 

church,  that  they  can  no  more  be  separated 
from  one  another.  This  shows  how,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  giving  up  of  the  virgin 
birth  almost  ahvays  leads  to  the  giving  up 
of  the  perfect  divinity  and  sinlessness  of 
Christ;  and  how,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Christian  belief  in  both  has  always  found 
a  stronghold  and  a  firm  foundation  in  the 
miraculous  origin  of  Christ.  We  can  very 
clearly  observe  this  as  in  Luther,  whose  re- 
ligious life  still  recommends  itself  chiefly,  as 
a  rule,  for  evangelical  religious  works.  In 
his  sermons  and  hymns  he  continually  con- 
centrates and  impregnates  his  belief  in 
Christ  and  redemption  through  the  glance  at 
the  manger  and  the  Son  of  the  virgin  in  it. 
If  one,  therefore,  indicates  the  virgin  birth 
as  valueless  for  his  religious  life,  we  shall 
acknowledge,  indeed,  "the  sincerity"  but  not 
the  truth  of  his  confession,  and  seek  its 
cause  in  a  still  imperfect  religio-ethical 
experience.  Only  with  a  certain  maturity 
and  a  certain  richness,  in  the  experiences  of 
the  Christian  life  with  the  sinless  and  divine 
Lord  is  given  the  belief  in  the  virgin  birth. 
But  whoever  has  it,  or  strives  after  it,  and 
at  the  same  time  possesses  the  necessary  in- 


8o  The  Virgin  Birth 

sight  into  the  historical  facts,  can  acknowl- 
edge the  reality  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Jesus 
from  fully  sufficient  religious  motives,  and 
will  be  supported  by  the  results  of  unpreju- 
diced science.^ 


^On  this  subject  see  in  addition  to  The  Incarnation  and 
Recent  Criticism,  published  by  Eaton  and  Mains,  New 
York;  The  Virgin  Birth,  by  Professor  Orr;  The  Birth  and 
Infancy  of  Jesus,  by  Rev.  Louis  Matthew  Sweet,  M.  A. 


Date  Due 

— 

i««(«p»«^^^'*^ 

*m^ 

m 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

fiftiS 


«^. . .  .. 


^^se&HR«ii^ 

r^^ 

'M 

^^s 

^^ 

W 

^^R 

^^^ 

^ 

^m 

iS^^g 

U5T\^g 

kM^ 

^<^^^ 

^^^^ 

..........^M^^^^mm^m^ 


i;r.':'';-.V-V-*.-V'-.?.V-*' ■'*"'' 1^ 


